So what is the SNP's price for supporting the now imminent and inevitable Labour minority government? I reckon Indyref2 and Defence Secretary to nobble Trident which is a price Corbo will happily pay.
So what sort of Brexit will minority Labour negotiate?
Michael Gove's figures are appalling. He's well known and the public are clear in their minds that he's not Prime Ministerial.
He is not even human
I mean, the worst you can say about Corbo is that he is a lying fucktard who despises Britain but he's still several rungs up the evolutionary ladder from Gove and would be a far better PM.
A Jezza PM-ship would be like jumping out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft without a parachute. Fantastic fun on the way down but not so great on landing.
That looks like doubly good news for the Remain end of Parliament.
She's still trying to scare the ERG into backing the deal, isn't she? Which is fine as far as it goes, but the DUP aren't playing ball and even if they were the numbers don't seem to be close to what is needed.
I appreciate your usual jovial tone, TSE, but it is hardly inconceivable that May leaves as head of the Conservative party with immediate effect - currently 24/1.
I think she might resign as PM and hand over as PM to someone else but remain as Tory leader for the next few months whilst a new leader is elected.
How would a new PM be selected in these circumstances?
Theresa May tells Her Majesty to call for Jeremy Hunt or David Lidington.
That looks like doubly good news for the Remain end of Parliament.
She's still trying to scare the ERG into backing the deal, isn't she? Which is fine as far as it goes, but the DUP aren't playing ball and even if they were the numbers don't seem to be close to what is needed.
Blame her software programmers. They didn't envisage the need for an alternative strategy.
This. With the concluding missive "fuck the lot of you" as she walks from the '22 noisly farting.
At least Major had the style to say "I lost. I quit. See ya" and then go to the cricket where he could sit there grinning at the cameras through his shades.
She's probably relaxed because the Commons took back control and guess what? Even (k)nobs like JRM and our very own @******_****** realise that when you get down and dirty, which is where we are now, her deal is the only game in town.
Find me a single post Topping (a single one) I made going back to the Chequers Deal last year when I didn’t support May’s Deal.
Where in that post did I say that you ever didn't support the deal.
It’s perfectly obvious you were referring to me.
Own it.
Indeed. You're the only 6_6 user I can think of. Richard_Tyndall is 7_7 (and like you has consistently backed the deal post Chequers). I'm 6_8 but still oppose the deal and view no deal, long extension and renegotiate and second referendum as other games. Can't think of many other users with that style of name.
"The confirmatory REF2 lock is process" - no it is of the UTMOST substance.
What I mean is that it is not a Brexit outcome. It is akin to the SNP one - that any deal must be ratified by Holyrood. Important, yes, but does not belong with the others.
For example, imagine if it 'wins' this whole exercise and gets passed next week and becomes official government policy.
OK, so the UK's agreed Brexit position, the one we go back to the EU with, is now as follows:
"We have not agreed what we want but we HAVE agreed that whatever we might be able to agree at some point in the future will not be implemented unless it wins a referendum."
That takes us backwards.
So the way forward is to FIRST see if we can agree what we want (in the PD) and then tag on the REF if, and only if, it is necessary to do that in order to get it through a ratifying meaningful vote.
This. With the concluding missive "fuck the lot of you" as she walks from the '22 noisly farting.
At least Major had the style to say "I lost. I quit. See ya" and then go to the cricket where he could sit there grinning at the cameras through his shades.
She's probably relaxed because the Commons took back control and guess what? Even (k)nobs like JRM and our very own @******_****** realise that when you get down and dirty, which is where we are now, her deal is the only game in town.
Find me a single post Topping (a single one) I made going back to the Chequers Deal last year when I didn’t support May’s Deal.
Where in that post did I say that you ever didn't support the deal.
It’s perfectly obvious you were referring to me.
Own it.
LOL
Get over yourself. Whatever you did or didn't say, post or think you remain in the dolt Brexiter category.
So what is the SNP's price for supporting the now imminent and inevitable Labour minority government? I reckon Indyref2 and Defence Secretary to nobble Trident which is a price Corbo will happily pay.
Indyref 2 will do , that means Trident is in their control anyway, nice rental for 10 - 20 years.
That looks like doubly good news for the Remain end of Parliament.
She's still trying to scare the ERG into backing the deal, isn't she? Which is fine as far as it goes, but the DUP aren't playing ball and even if they were the numbers don't seem to be close to what is needed.
No, she's providing cover for Kyle/Wilson to pass.
So, with the DUP still in No Surrender mode and cowardly custards like Mogg only willing to vote for it if the DUP will, that still has May's deal stone cold dead. Which leaves revoke or no deal. Regardless of the pantomime being acted out this afternoon.
On the earlier subject of 'jobs worth' and people implementing rules regardless of circumstances - Back in January we got a parking ticket. We didn't know until we got the follow up because it had obviously blown away or been nicked.
Anyway we had paid for the parking but the voice recognition software had mistaken an F for an S on our registration so there was a simple provable explanation. The penalty has been waived.
However the letter says 'I should point out that I shall be unable to cancel and further Notices incurred in similar circumstances'. I was livid by the arrogance of this comment. We had paid and could prove it and it wasn't our mistake. You damn well will cancel future tickets if it happens again!
I was told if it happens again it will not be cancelled and I would have to go thru' the appeals process which presumably I would win. What a pointless exercise.
What is wrong with these people? What is the point in penalising people who have obeyed the rules?
Easier to get money out of people who obey the rules, given they are obviously decent reasonable people.
Always a delight to spot an error in a history. I listen to an audiobook about British history whilst exercising (except the bike, for which my stints are as long as a Blackadder episode) and was surprised to hear that Geoffrey of Anjou was 'the only son present' at Henry II's passing.
Letwin already under fire from Brexiters - remarkable to see him answering questions from his place in the corner as if he were the government.
Well it was his mad idea.
It would work if MPs were willing to engage with it. But with half the house determined to turn it into chaos and the other half willing to vote only for their own favourite solution, the chances of today getting anywhere is starting to look slim. They stand a better chance on Monday, but government is clearly thinking about how to recover the initiative before the weekend.
That looks like doubly good news for the Remain end of Parliament.
She's still trying to scare the ERG into backing the deal, isn't she? Which is fine as far as it goes, but the DUP aren't playing ball and even if they were the numbers don't seem to be close to what is needed.
The MV3 market on Betfair is an odd one. On the face of it current odds are ridiculous and Yes should not be below 5 at a minimum, bearing in mind the apparent immovability of the key players. But as @Pulpstar has pointed out it gets voided if there is no vote before Saturday, and it looks like a vote will only be put forward if it stands a decent chance. Pricing accurately with that in mind is beyond my tiny brain.
This. With the concluding missive "fuck the lot of you" as she walks from the '22 noisly farting.
At least Major had the style to say "I lost. I quit. See ya" and then go to the cricket where he could sit there grinning at the cameras through his shades.
She's probably relaxed because the Commons took back control and guess what? Even (k)nobs like JRM and our very own @******_****** realise that when you get down and dirty, which is where we are now, her deal is the only game in town.
Find me a single post Topping (a single one) I made going back to the Chequers Deal last year when I didn’t support May’s Deal.
Where in that post did I say that you ever didn't support the deal.
It’s perfectly obvious you were referring to me.
Own it.
Indeed. You're the only 6_6 user I can think of. Richard_Tyndall is 7_7 (and like you has consistently backed the deal post Chequers). I'm 6_8 but still oppose the deal and view no deal, long extension and renegotiate and second referendum as other games. Can't think of many other users with that style of name.
That looks like doubly good news for the Remain end of Parliament.
She's still trying to scare the ERG into backing the deal, isn't she? Which is fine as far as it goes, but the DUP aren't playing ball and even if they were the numbers don't seem to be close to what is needed.
The MV3 market on Betfair is an odd one. On the face of it current odds are ridiculous and Yes should not be below 5 at a minimum, bearing in mind the apparent immovability of the key players. But as @Pulpstar has pointed out it gets voided if there is no vote before Saturday, and it looks like a vote will only be put forward if it stands a decent chance. Pricing accurately with that in mind is beyond my tiny brain.
I've backed "No" on the basis that the market is being voided by 30-03. I'll send a twitter message to Betfair if it isn't as I think the Gov't might well move in early April to something that will pass. If they hold the vote this week though they won't have moved, and it will fail.
That looks like doubly good news for the Remain end of Parliament.
She's still trying to scare the ERG into backing the deal, isn't she? Which is fine as far as it goes, but the DUP aren't playing ball and even if they were the numbers don't seem to be close to what is needed.
The MV3 market on Betfair is an odd one. On the face of it current odds are ridiculous and Yes should not be below 5 at a minimum, bearing in mind the apparent immovability of the key players. But as @Pulpstar has pointed out it gets voided if there is no vote before Saturday, and it looks like a vote will only be put forward if it stands a decent chance. Pricing accurately with that in mind is beyond my tiny brain.
Good spot. So basically a bet on the government whips misjudging things. On past form...
So in spite of having "taken back control", we know nothing that happens today matters. None of the votes mean very much and nothing will change except we will be a day further down the road to No Deal.
We have still, as the only games in town, leaving with an agreed WA on 22/5, leaving without an agreed WA on 12/4 or revocation. When Ken Clarke, who seems to know his onions, talked about revocation the other day, he didn't say anything about stopping Brexit. What he implied was that as the current negotiations have floundered, we should cancel and re-instigate A50 after the EU elections and after a suitable time for reflection.
Now. that could include a GE or it may not - I suppose if it did and a Party won a majority on a particular plan (Norway, Canada Lite, Andorra Heavy or whatever) that would be a mandated position to file for A50 again and re-commence negotiation. At least the EU would be clear where the UK stood and it might well be the second round of negotiations would proceed far more smoothly than the first.
I'd rather Revoke, sort out exactly what we want and then re-apply A50 on a united and coherent position than either run down the clock with no WA or support what (despite the claims of the May apologists) is a flawed WA.
The problem is the Conservatives are terrified their voter base will not take kindly to revocation claiming (via the Mail and Express) it's a betrayal of the sacred 23/6/16 Referendum. Maybe but there comes a point when, whether they like it or not, parties can decide to act in the national interest or their own interest and if acting in the national interest is contrary to their own interest, so be it.
I well remember the siren calls from Conservatives for taxes to be cut in the run up to the 1997 election but Clarke refused and in so doing may have contributed to Blair's landslide but he bequeathed a sound economic position to Brown. Sometimes the best for the country isn't the best for your Party and you have to take the hit in the national interest.
This is, I am afraid, the biggest unicorn of them all. If we revoke there is no way on earth Parliament will ever let us invoke again.
That looks like doubly good news for the Remain end of Parliament.
She's still trying to scare the ERG into backing the deal, isn't she? Which is fine as far as it goes, but the DUP aren't playing ball and even if they were the numbers don't seem to be close to what is needed.
The MV3 market on Betfair is an odd one. On the face of it current odds are ridiculous and Yes should not be below 5 at a minimum, bearing in mind the apparent immovability of the key players. But as @Pulpstar has pointed out it gets voided if there is no vote before Saturday, and it looks like a vote will only be put forward if it stands a decent chance. Pricing accurately with that in mind is beyond my tiny brain.
I've backed "No" on the basis that the market is being voided by 30-03. I'll send a twitter message to Betfair if it isn't as I think the Gov't might well move in early April to something that will pass. If they hold the vote this week though they won't have moved, and it will fail.
They have to vote this week (and pass) to meet the EU conditions of extending to 22 may.
This procedural stuff is going to fill the afternoon. Then (assuming Letwin carries again) MPs will be voting on paper after negligible debate. We can only hope Bercow has applied logic to the selection of the options.
That looks like doubly good news for the Remain end of Parliament.
She's still trying to scare the ERG into backing the deal, isn't she? Which is fine as far as it goes, but the DUP aren't playing ball and even if they were the numbers don't seem to be close to what is needed.
The MV3 market on Betfair is an odd one. On the face of it current odds are ridiculous and Yes should not be below 5 at a minimum, bearing in mind the apparent immovability of the key players. But as @Pulpstar has pointed out it gets voided if there is no vote before Saturday, and it looks like a vote will only be put forward if it stands a decent chance. Pricing accurately with that in mind is beyond my tiny brain.
Good spot. So basically a bet on the government whips misjudging things. On past form...
I've backed yes on MV3 for the simple reason that arithmetic, contingency, and all that notwithstanding, it remains the only possible option.
If the MPs are 'taking back control', what is the point of Indyref2?
I can't see it passing Parliament.
It'd make this stuff look like a storm in a teacup if Parliament blocked Sindy after a "Yes" vote, or asked the Scots to "ratify the withdrawal agreement..."
Can someone explain the practicality (not the Constitutional logic) of the Cabinet abstaining? Seems more likely to simply give more chance of success to outcomes not wanted. It is not as if their individual, personal preferences are a matter of much mystery.
Geoffrey of Brittany's the chap I meant (father of Arthur, son of Henry II).
It's like that rule about making a typo becoming far likelier if you mock someone else's.
Isn't it an amazing and good thing that one can trust wikipedia to be right about that sort of thing - one of the few things on the internet which are pretty much an unqualified good.
So what is the SNP's price for supporting the now imminent and inevitable Labour minority government? I reckon Indyref2 and Defence Secretary to nobble Trident which is a price Corbo will happily pay.
Do you mean a GE is inevitable and it is then inevitable that Labour will be largest party in a hung parliament?
Or do you mean it is inevitable that JC will succeed with a VONC in this parliament and will then be called by HM and will enter number 10 without the need to disturb the voters?
Important I know, because the 1st and I am quids in, whereas the 2nd I am quids out.
This. With the concluding missive "fuck the lot of you" as she walks from the '22 noisly farting.
At least Major had the style to say "I lost. I quit. See ya" and then go to the cricket where he could sit there grinning at the cameras through his shades.
She's probably relaxed because the Commons took back control and guess what? Even (k)nobs like JRM and our very own @******_****** realise that when you get down and dirty, which is where we are now, her deal is the only game in town.
Find me a single post Topping (a single one) I made going back to the Chequers Deal last year when I didn’t support May’s Deal.
Where in that post did I say that you ever didn't support the deal.
It’s perfectly obvious you were referring to me.
Own it.
LOL
Get over yourself. Whatever you did or didn't say, post or think you remain in the dolt Brexiter category.
You’re a coward who hasn’t got the bollocks to say it to my face, and are now trying to wriggle out of it as you realise you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
My argument was never with you but you decide to get stuck in and hurl some mud my way, all because I picked on your chum and his posting style, as you recognised a kindred spirit.
"It'd make this stuff look like a storm in a teacup if Parliament blocked Sindy after a "Yes" vote, or asked the Scots to "ratify the withdrawal agreement.."
Probably so, yet people expect a revocation of Art 50 to be accepted calmly? They're deluded.
Letwin suggesting Monday will move on to preference voting.
AV back on? I assume the current deal will be one of the options.
But no one on the Gvt side was brave enough to put it into the process (although May's WA is implicit in some of the other options). Hence rumours the government is thinking on ejaculating MV3 back into Friday,
This. With the concluding missive "fuck the lot of you" as she walks from the '22 noisly farting.
At least Major had the style to say "I lost. I quit. See ya" and then go to the cricket where he could sit there grinning at the cameras through his shades.
She's probably relaxed because the Commons took back control and guess what? Even (k)nobs like JRM and our very own @******_****** realise that when you get down and dirty, which is where we are now, her deal is the only game in town.
Find me a single post Topping (a single one) I made going back to the Chequers Deal last year when I didn’t support May’s Deal.
Where in that post did I say that you ever didn't support the deal.
It’s perfectly obvious you were referring to me.
Own it.
Indeed. You're the only 6_6 user I can think of. Richard_Tyndall is 7_7 (and like you has consistently backed the deal post Chequers). I'm 6_8 but still oppose the deal and view no deal, long extension and renegotiate and second referendum as other games. Can't think of many other users with that style of name.
Can someone explain the practicality (not the Constitutional logic) of the Cabinet abstaining? Seems more likely to simply give more chance of success to outcomes not wanted. It is not as if their individual, personal preferences are a matter of much mystery.
It avoids ministers resigning (like the junior ministers have been doing) and voting against the PM and each other.
Can someone explain the practicality (not the Constitutional logic) of the Cabinet abstaining? Seems more likely to simply give more chance of success to outcomes not wanted. It is not as if their individual, personal preferences are a matter of much mystery.
Who says they don't want these outcomes? They don't want No Deal, they can't pass their deal, and they don't to be blamed for whatever else happens.
"It'd make this stuff look like a storm in a teacup if Parliament blocked Sindy after a "Yes" vote, or asked the Scots to "ratify the withdrawal agreement.."
Probably so, yet people expect a revocation of Art 50 to be accepted calmly? They're deluded.
A while back I retilted my pension back toward the UK, I've every confidence parliament will either remain or 'good as'
This whole farrago is pointing up that our entire system is designed for a government with a working majority and breaks down in circumstances when the voters through our flawed voting system don't oblige.
Letwin suggesting Monday will move on to preference voting.
AV back on? I assume the current deal will be one of the options.
But no one on the Gvt side was brave enough to put it into the process (although May's WA is implicit in some of the other options). Hence rumours the government is thinking on ejaculating MV3 back into Friday,
So it’s basically the MPs discussing a bunch of unicorn options while the only deal in town is not being considered.
I appreciate your usual jovial tone, TSE, but it is hardly inconceivable that May leaves as head of the Conservative party with immediate effect - currently 24/1.
I think she might resign as PM and hand over as PM to someone else but remain as Tory leader for the next few months whilst a new leader is elected.
How would a new PM be selected in these circumstances?
Theresa May tells Her Majesty to call for Jeremy Hunt or David Lidington.
Or maybe David Gauke.
And are we to suppose that Tory MPs would meekly accept May's imposition of her chosen successor on them (even if HM agreed to go along with it, which seems very unlikely)?
I wouldn't rule that out *if* there was a respected candidate acceptable to both wings who had no skin in the long-term leadership game and 'stood' on a 'manifesto' of getting through the current unpleasantness then stepping down for a fully-contested Tory leadership contest.
Trouble is, I can't think of the candidate who would have both wings on-side (Lidington and others too remainy, Gove too ambitious and probably too leavy etc) and be considered to have the weight to do the job.
I think all the key long-term players would happily sit it out for 3-6 months while the deed was done, then rebuild the post-Brexit future. Nothing to be gained by picking up the arse end of this one.
Mr. Z, jein. I did just make a mistake about two chaps with the same name, but Wikipedia isn't entirely correct. Describing Alexander as a Greek ruler is particularly contentious.
However, I do agree that, in general, Wikipedia is a very good thing.
This. With the concluding missive "fuck the lot of you" as she walks from the '22 noisly farting.
At least Major had the style to say "I lost. I quit. See ya" and then go to the cricket where he could sit there grinning at the cameras through his shades.
She's probably relaxed because the Commons took back control and guess what? Even (k)nobs like JRM and our very own @******_****** realise that when you get down and dirty, which is where we are now, her deal is the only game in town.
Find me a single post Topping (a single one) I made going back to the Chequers Deal last year when I didn’t support May’s Deal.
Where in that post did I say that you ever didn't support the deal.
It’s perfectly obvious you were referring to me.
Own it.
LOL
Get over yourself. Whatever you did or didn't say, post or think you remain in the dolt Brexiter category.
You’re a coward who hasn’t got the bollocks to say it to my face, and are now trying to wriggle out of it as you realise you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
My argument was never with you but you decide to get stuck in and hurl some mud my way, all because I picked on your chum and his posting style, as you recognised a kindred spirit.
Pathetic.
I'll say it to your face any time you want.
I have said that I don't care whether you supported the deal or didn't support the deal. I am not wriggling out of anything. I am perfectly happy to accept you have always been an avid supporter of the deal. You are nevertheless a dolt Brexiter.
Can someone explain the practicality (not the Constitutional logic) of the Cabinet abstaining? Seems more likely to simply give more chance of success to outcomes not wanted. It is not as if their individual, personal preferences are a matter of much mystery.
Who says they don't want these outcomes? They don't want No Deal, they can't pass their deal, and they don't to be blamed for whatever else happens.
Bunch of cowards with no backbones, rather hide behind the sofa than act in a manly fashion.
Mr. Z, jein. I did just make a mistake about two chaps with the same name, but Wikipedia isn't entirely correct. Describing Alexander as a Greek ruler is particularly contentious.
However, I do agree that, in general, Wikipedia is a very good thing.
I almost said, If you keep out of the edit wars.
As a matter of fact I think Alexander was a Greek ruler. Other views are available.
This. With the concluding missive "fuck the lot of you" as she walks from the '22 noisly farting.
At least Major had the style to say "I lost. I quit. See ya" and then go to the cricket where he could sit there grinning at the cameras through his shades.
She's probably relaxed because the Commons took back control and guess what? Even (k)nobs like JRM and our very own @******_****** realise that when you get down and dirty, which is where we are now, her deal is the only game in town.
Find me a single post Topping (a single one) I made going back to the Chequers Deal last year when I didn’t support May’s Deal.
Where in that post did I say that you ever didn't support the deal.
It’s perfectly obvious you were referring to me.
Own it.
LOL
Get over yourself. Whatever you did or didn't say, post or think you remain in the dolt Brexiter category.
You’re a coward who hasn’t got the bollocks to say it to my face, and are now trying to wriggle out of it as you realise you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
My argument was never with you but you decide to get stuck in and hurl some mud my way, all because I picked on your chum and his posting style, as you recognised a kindred spirit.
Pathetic.
I'll say it to your face any time you want.
I have said that I don't care whether you supported the deal or didn't support the deal. I am not wriggling out of anything. I am perfectly happy to accept you have always been an avid supporter of the deal. You are nevertheless a dolt Brexiter.
God, that’s poor.
Basically you’ve admitted you were wrong about everything but you’ve just added “dolt” at the end of it to save a bit of face.
Can someone explain the practicality (not the Constitutional logic) of the Cabinet abstaining? Seems more likely to simply give more chance of success to outcomes not wanted. It is not as if their individual, personal preferences are a matter of much mystery.
Who says they don't want these outcomes? They don't want No Deal, they can't pass their deal, and they don't to be blamed for whatever else happens.
I guess it:
(a) is the best chance of looking unified. (b) it's 10-15 votes off the total for most options, making The Deal look like less of a loser. (c) probably the only thing May can do without getting a ruck of resignations.
Done for entirely negative reasons, but it stops them being the story tomorrow morning.
Can someone explain the practicality (not the Constitutional logic) of the Cabinet abstaining? Seems more likely to simply give more chance of success to outcomes not wanted. It is not as if their individual, personal preferences are a matter of much mystery.
Who says they don't want these outcomes? They don't want No Deal, they can't pass their deal, and they don't to be blamed for whatever else happens.
Bunch of cowards with no backbones, rather hide behind the sofa than act in a manly fashion.
A bunch of politicians with dumb, lazy voters who will punish them if they see them doing anything responsible
Can someone explain the practicality (not the Constitutional logic) of the Cabinet abstaining? Seems more likely to simply give more chance of success to outcomes not wanted. It is not as if their individual, personal preferences are a matter of much mystery.
It avoids ministers resigning (like the junior ministers have been doing) and voting against the PM and each other.
But it is a free vote. And Junior Ministers will be taking part.
Can someone explain the practicality (not the Constitutional logic) of the Cabinet abstaining? Seems more likely to simply give more chance of success to outcomes not wanted. It is not as if their individual, personal preferences are a matter of much mystery.
I don't know, but perhaps the thinking is that this is supposed to be about the cabinet listening to what the Commons might want. Viewed that way, it makes sense to abstain.
Having said that, if Labour whip and the Tories don't, it rather negates the purpose.
As this impasse continues, I'm warming to the idea of the CM 2.0 plan, and have been reading the summary here: http://betterbrexit.org.uk/
It has flaws, but given none of the available options (incl revoke and Ref2) are particularly palatable in any event, I am beginning to think this offers us a pathway out of the mess, particularly if it does allow us some degree of initial consultative influence as an EEA member on future EU proposals. It also means that if and when we find a frictionless border solution, agreeable to all sides, a future UK Govt could transition us across to that (even if that is not the intention of Boles etc who are supporting it).
The "rule taker" objection is there, but even on the hardest of Bill Cash style Brexits, we will still be a rule taker in practice. The newly emerged EU proposals for embedded speed limiters on cars and on universal summer time all year round (both of which I strongly oppose) are good examples of this. Even on a hard Brexit, we will be beholden to these because no car manufacturer is going to manufacture UK specific models without any of the Brussels enforced gubbins, even if UK law doesn't require it in order to sell here - we will get it anyway because manufacturers will include it. A Hard Brexit UK would have had no influence over that, but will still have to live with EU product standards on everything we buy and sell. Whereas our commitments to Ireland, and desire to avoid Irish reunification, would mean a UK government would in practice have to go along with the universal summertime proposal as a means of avoiding either two timezones in the UK or NI being in a different timezone to the ROI at the UK's behest.
Practical reality will take over regardless of legal obligations.
Of course remaining a full EU member is the only way to mitigate those concerns properly. But doing so would not only be a national humiliation at this stage, it is unthinkable that we could after 3 years just junk the wishes of the 17.4m who made up the narrow majority.
Am I missing something really obviously bad with the CM 2.0 plan?
As this impasse continues, I'm warming to the idea of the CM 2.0 plan, and have been reading the summary here: http://betterbrexit.org.uk/
It has flaws, but given none of the available options (incl revoke and Ref2) are particularly palatable in any event, I am beginning to think this offers us a pathway out of the mess, particularly if it does allow us some degree of initial consultative influence as an EEA member on future EU proposals. It also means that if and when we find a frictionless border solution, agreeable to all sides, a future UK Govt could transition us across to that (even if that is not the intention of Boles etc who are supporting it).
The "rule taker" objection is there, but even on the hardest of Bill Cash style Brexits, we will still be a rule taker in practice. The newly emerged EU proposals for embedded speed limiters on cars and on universal summer time all year round (both of which I strongly oppose) are good examples of this. Even on a hard Brexit, we will be beholden to these because no car manufacturer is going to manufacture UK specific models without any of the Brussels enforced gubbins, even if UK law doesn't require it in order to sell here - but we will all get it anyway because manufacturers will include it. A Hard Brexit UK would have had no influence over that, but will still have to live with EU product standards on everything we buy and sell. Whereas our commitments to Ireland, and desire to avoid Irish reunification, would mean a UK government would in practice have to go along with the universal summertime proposal as a means of avoiding either two timezones in the UK or NI being in a different timezone to the ROI at the UK's behest.
Practical reality will take over regardless of legal obligations.
Of course remaining a full EU member is the only way to mitigate those concerns properly. But doing so would not only be a national humiliation at this stage, it is unthinkable that we could after 3 years just junk the wishes of the 17.4m who made up the narrow majority.
Am I missing something really obviously bad with the CM 2.0 plan?
Can someone explain the practicality (not the Constitutional logic) of the Cabinet abstaining? Seems more likely to simply give more chance of success to outcomes not wanted. It is not as if their individual, personal preferences are a matter of much mystery.
Who says they don't want these outcomes? They don't want No Deal, they can't pass their deal, and they don't to be blamed for whatever else happens.
Fair enough. Hadn't considered that. Still labouring under the misapprehension that the Cabinet thinks Mays Deal is alive.
This whole farrago is pointing up that our entire system is designed for a government with a working majority and breaks down in circumstances when the voters through our flawed voting system don't oblige.
The problem is it wasn't designed, it evolved, in an environment where FTPT mostly produced clear majorities in the Commons for one party or another. You have to go back to periods in the late 18th, early 19th centuries when there was no clear HoC majority and then governments tended to last as long as post-war Italian ones. The only even remotely similar period in the last century was the immediately post-WW1 period when the Liberals were dying and being replace by Labour.
This. With the concluding missive "fuck the lot of you" as she walks from the '22 noisly farting.
At least Major had the style to say "I lost. I quit. See ya" and then go to the cricket where he could sit there grinning at the cameras through his shades.
She's probably relaxed because the Commons took back control and guess what? Even (k)nobs like JRM and our very own @******_****** realise that when you get down and dirty, which is where we are now, her deal is the only game in town.
Find me a single post Topping (a single one) I made going back to the Chequers Deal last year when I didn’t support May’s Deal.
Where in that post did I say that you ever didn't support the deal.
It’s perfectly obvious you were referring to me.
Own it.
LOL
Get over yourself. Whatever you did or didn't say, post or think you remain in the dolt Brexiter category.
You’re a coward who hasn’t got the bollocks to say it to my face, and are now trying to wriggle out of it as you realise you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
My argument was never with you but you decide to get stuck in and hurl some mud my way, all because I picked on your chum and his posting style, as you recognised a kindred spirit.
Pathetic.
I'll say it to your face any time you want.
I have said that I don't care whether you supported the deal or didn't support the deal. I am not wriggling out of anything. I am perfectly happy to accept you have always been an avid supporter of the deal. You are nevertheless a dolt Brexiter.
God, that’s poor.
Basically you’ve admitted you were wrong about everything but you’ve just added “dolt” at the end of it to save a bit of face.
I’ll take that as a victory, thank you.
Good day.
Not wrong about anything. Especially the dolt bit.
This. With the concluding missive "fuck the lot of you" as she walks from the '22 noisly farting.
At least Major had the style to say "I lost. I quit. See ya" and then go to the cricket where he could sit there grinning at the cameras through his shades.
She's probably relaxed because the Commons took back control and guess what? Even (k)nobs like JRM and our very own @******_****** realise that when you get down and dirty, which is where we are now, her deal is the only game in town.
Find me a single post Topping (a single one) I made going back to the Chequers Deal last year when I didn’t support May’s Deal.
Where in that post did I say that you ever didn't support the deal.
It’s perfectly obvious you were referring to me.
Own it.
LOL
Get over yourself. Whatever you did or didn't say, post or think you remain in the dolt Brexiter category.
You’re a coward who hasn’t got the bollocks to say it to my face, and are now trying to wriggle out of it as you realise you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
My argument was never with you but you decide to get stuck in and hurl some mud my way, all because I picked on your chum and his posting style, as you recognised a kindred spirit.
Pathetic.
I'll say it to your face any time you want.
I have said that I don't care whether you supported the deal or didn't support the deal. I am not wriggling out of anything. I am perfectly happy to accept you have always been an avid supporter of the deal. You are nevertheless a dolt Brexiter.
God, that’s poor.
Basically you’ve admitted you were wrong about everything but you’ve just added “dolt” at the end of it to save a bit of face.
I’ll take that as a victory, thank you.
Good day.
Not wrong about anything. Especially the dolt bit.
Looks like all the procedural amendments have been rejected. Good call by Bercow. Gets the timetable back on track - Bercow's announcement on the selected options likely earlier, as Carlotta suggested originally - say 1515
As this impasse continues, I'm warming to the idea of the CM 2.0 plan, and have been reading the summary here: http://betterbrexit.org.uk/
It has flaws, but given none of the available options (incl revoke and Ref2) are particularly palatable in any event, I am beginning to think this offers us a pathway out of the mess, particularly if it does allow us some degree of initial consultative influence as an EEA member on future EU proposals. It also means that if and when we find a frictionless border solution, agreeable to all sides, a future UK Govt could transition us across to that (even if that is not the intention of Boles etc who are supporting it).
The "rule taker" objection is there, but even on the hardest of Bill Cash style Brexits, we will still be a rule taker in practice. The newly emerged EU proposals for embedded speed limiters on cars and on universal summer time all year round (both of which I strongly oppose) are good examples of this. Even on a hard Brexit, we will be beholden to these because no car manufacturer is going to manufacture UK specific models without any of the Brussels enforced gubbins, even if UK law doesn't require it in order to sell here - we will get it anyway because manufacturers will include it. A Hard Brexit UK would have had no influence over that, but will still have to live with EU product standards on everything we buy and sell. Whereas our commitments to Ireland, and desire to avoid Irish reunification, would mean a UK government would in practice have to go along with the universal summertime proposal as a means of avoiding either two timezones in the UK or NI being in a different timezone to the ROI at the UK's behest.
Practical reality will take over regardless of legal obligations.
Of course remaining a full EU member is the only way to mitigate those concerns properly. But doing so would not only be a national humiliation at this stage, it is unthinkable that we could after 3 years just junk the wishes of the 17.4m who made up the narrow majority.
Am I missing something really obviously bad with the CM 2.0 plan?
Who gives a s**t if there's two timezones in the UK or Ireland?
Many, many nations cope just fine with multiple timezones depending upon what makes sense geographically for each nation.
There is a sane argument to be made that permanent summer time would suit England better and permanent winter time would suit Scotland better. If Westminster voted to adopt summer time (or my personal preference is keep daylight savings altogether) and Holyrood voted to adopt winter time then who cares if there's an hours difference between London and Edinburgh?
This. With the concluding missive "fuck the lot of you" as she walks from the '22 noisly farting.
At least Major had the style to say "I lost. I quit. See ya" and then go to the cricket where he could sit there grinning at the cameras through his shades.
She's probably relaxed because the Commons took back control and guess what? Even (k)nobs like JRM and our very own @******_****** realise that when you get down and dirty, which is where we are now, her deal is the only game in town.
Find me a single post Topping (a single one) I made going back to the Chequers Deal last year when I didn’t support May’s Deal.
Where in that post did I say that you ever didn't support the deal.
It’s perfectly obvious you were referring to me.
Own it.
LOL
Get over yourself. Whatever you did or didn't say, post or think you remain in the dolt Brexiter category.
You’re a coward who hasn’t got the bollocks to say it to my face, and are now trying to wriggle out of it as you realise you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
My argument was never with you but you decide to get stuck in and hurl some mud my way, all because I picked on your chum and his posting style, as you recognised a kindred spirit.
Pathetic.
I'll say it to your face any time you want.
I have said that I don't care whether you supported the deal or didn't support the deal. I am not wriggling out of anything. I am perfectly happy to accept you have always been an avid supporter of the deal. You are nevertheless a dolt Brexiter.
God, that’s poor.
Basically you’ve admitted you were wrong about everything but you’ve just added “dolt” at the end of it to save a bit of face.
I’ll take that as a victory, thank you.
Good day.
Not wrong about anything. Especially the dolt bit.
So you know why leave voters voted that way? I hate to shatter your illusions, but most voters don't examine the minutiae of campaigns because they are either too busy, or more likely they have a healthy disrespect for the lies/exaggeration of politicians.
"If we vote to leave, the poor little seabirds will fall out of the sky, and the wardrobe monster will come and get us."
It could be that many had lived through 40 years of the EU, and they didn't like what they saw. The kiddies obviously didn't have that advantage.
Comments
You got banned after your f-bomb spree a month or two ago, on top of aggressively and personally insulting a number of other posters.
So you’re in a very poor position to comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hammond
For example, imagine if it 'wins' this whole exercise and gets passed next week and becomes official government policy.
OK, so the UK's agreed Brexit position, the one we go back to the EU with, is now as follows:
"We have not agreed what we want but we HAVE agreed that whatever we might be able to agree at some point in the future will not be implemented unless it wins a referendum."
That takes us backwards.
So the way forward is to FIRST see if we can agree what we want (in the PD) and then tag on the REF if, and only if, it is necessary to do that in order to get it through a ratifying meaningful vote.
Parliament has TAKEN BACK CONTROL.
Get over yourself. Whatever you did or didn't say, post or think you remain in the dolt Brexiter category.
(13:45 on 27th Mar)
If they hold the vote this week though they won't have moved, and it will fail.
Geoffrey of Brittany's the chap I meant (father of Arthur, son of Henry II).
It's like that rule about making a typo becoming far likelier if you mock someone else's.
I can't see it passing Parliament.
Seems more likely to simply give more chance of success to outcomes not wanted.
It is not as if their individual, personal preferences are a matter of much mystery.
Or do you mean it is inevitable that JC will succeed with a VONC in this parliament and will then be called by HM and will enter number 10 without the need to disturb the voters?
Important I know, because the 1st and I am quids in, whereas the 2nd I am quids out.
My argument was never with you but you decide to get stuck in and hurl some mud my way, all because I picked on your chum and his posting style, as you recognised a kindred spirit.
Pathetic.
"It'd make this stuff look like a storm in a teacup if Parliament blocked Sindy after a "Yes" vote, or asked the Scots to "ratify the withdrawal agreement.."
Probably so, yet people expect a revocation of Art 50 to be accepted calmly? They're deluded.
Trouble is, I can't think of the candidate who would have both wings on-side (Lidington and others too remainy, Gove too ambitious and probably too leavy etc) and be considered to have the weight to do the job.
I think all the key long-term players would happily sit it out for 3-6 months while the deed was done, then rebuild the post-Brexit future. Nothing to be gained by picking up the arse end of this one.
However, I do agree that, in general, Wikipedia is a very good thing.
There’s a cluster of morons who like to fornicate awkwardly together in the basement of this site now, and it’s about time they were called out on it.
I think they’re upset I was right about the PV numbers on the march at the weekend, and can’t bear to admit it.
I’d take ten of you any day of the week over one of them.
I have said that I don't care whether you supported the deal or didn't support the deal. I am not wriggling out of anything. I am perfectly happy to accept you have always been an avid supporter of the deal. You are nevertheless a dolt Brexiter.
As a matter of fact I think Alexander was a Greek ruler. Other views are available.
Basically you’ve admitted you were wrong about everything but you’ve just added “dolt” at the end of it to save a bit of face.
I’ll take that as a victory, thank you.
Good day.
(a) is the best chance of looking unified.
(b) it's 10-15 votes off the total for most options, making The Deal look like less of a loser.
(c) probably the only thing May can do without getting a ruck of resignations.
Done for entirely negative reasons, but it stops them being the story tomorrow morning.
Having said that, if Labour whip and the Tories don't, it rather negates the purpose.
It has flaws, but given none of the available options (incl revoke and Ref2) are particularly palatable in any event, I am beginning to think this offers us a pathway out of the mess, particularly if it does allow us some degree of initial consultative influence as an EEA member on future EU proposals. It also means that if and when we find a frictionless border solution, agreeable to all sides, a future UK Govt could transition us across to that (even if that is not the intention of Boles etc who are supporting it).
The "rule taker" objection is there, but even on the hardest of Bill Cash style Brexits, we will still be a rule taker in practice. The newly emerged EU proposals for embedded speed limiters on cars and on universal summer time all year round (both of which I strongly oppose) are good examples of this. Even on a hard Brexit, we will be beholden to these because no car manufacturer is going to manufacture UK specific models without any of the Brussels enforced gubbins, even if UK law doesn't require it in order to sell here - we will get it anyway because manufacturers will include it. A Hard Brexit UK would have had no influence over that, but will still have to live with EU product standards on everything we buy and sell. Whereas our commitments to Ireland, and desire to avoid Irish reunification, would mean a UK government would in practice have to go along with the universal summertime proposal as a means of avoiding either two timezones in the UK or NI being in a different timezone to the ROI at the UK's behest.
Practical reality will take over regardless of legal obligations.
Of course remaining a full EU member is the only way to mitigate those concerns properly. But doing so would not only be a national humiliation at this stage, it is unthinkable that we could after 3 years just junk the wishes of the 17.4m who made up the narrow majority.
Am I missing something really obviously bad with the CM 2.0 plan?
Just looking back through the previous replies it seems like a quarrel without a cause.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1110879921847574528
I apologise if it turns out you were a member of the Vote Leave board.
Many, many nations cope just fine with multiple timezones depending upon what makes sense geographically for each nation.
There is a sane argument to be made that permanent summer time would suit England better and permanent winter time would suit Scotland better. If Westminster voted to adopt summer time (or my personal preference is keep daylight savings altogether) and Holyrood voted to adopt winter time then who cares if there's an hours difference between London and Edinburgh?
So you know why leave voters voted that way? I hate to shatter your illusions, but most voters don't examine the minutiae of campaigns because they are either too busy, or more likely they have a healthy disrespect for the lies/exaggeration of politicians.
"If we vote to leave, the poor little seabirds will fall out of the sky, and the wardrobe monster will come and get us."
It could be that many had lived through 40 years of the EU, and they didn't like what they saw. The kiddies obviously didn't have that advantage.