Jesus fucking Christ. Blow up parliament and start again. Elect some lemurs. Earthworms. A bunch of daffodils could form the Cabinet. They couldn't do worse.
B - (Baron: No deal) 160 v 400 D - (Boles: CM2) 188 v 283 H - (Eustace: EFTA+EEA) 65 v 377 J - (Clarke: WA+CU) 264 v 272 K - (Corbyn: Labour deal) 237 v 307 L - (Cherry: Revoke to avoid no deal) 184 v 293 M - (Beckett: WA+referendum) 268 v 295 O - (Fysh: Malthouse B ) 139 v 422
Letwin confirms the Commons will reconsider the matter on Monday based on preferences but urges MPs to vote for the Deal before then
That is the only way. Tell MPs that the most preferred option will win. Doesn't need a majority. Just needs to be the most popular. Make them sweat and starve until they decide.
From a connection of mine who actually works for the EU:
“The sight of all those MPs, their faces collapsed into their chins, poring over their ballot papers in the hope that Bercow would call bingo, before discovering that they had failed to vote for anything at all, was the funniest thing ever. Like a bunch of befuddled OAPs.”
The DUP object to MV3 on a point of principle, unlike Boris
Boris is such a monumental blob of narcissistic, corrupted and revolting humanity that he is not fit to clean my dog's anus with his tongue....he is the one who is singularly waiting for a special place in hell. Compared to him Chris Chope is a veritable fine fella.
Heh. Reading people like Iris Murdoch or E. M. Forster has made me think that one of the advantages of being a fiction writer might be the option to torment, knock off, or otherwise punish stylised versions of people one dislikes. BJ offers much scope for that I think.
B - (Baron: No deal) 160 v 400 D - (Boles: CM2) 188 v 283 H - (Eustace: EFTA+EEA) 65 v 377 J - (Clarke: WA+CU) 264 v 272 K - (Corbyn: Labour deal) 237 v 307 L - (Cherry: Revoke to avoid no deal) 184 v 293 M - (Beckett: WA+referendum) 268 v 295 O - (Fysh: Malthouse B ) 139 v 422
All NO
AV on Monday?!
The 160 for No Deal is quite remarkable.
As is the 184 for straight Revoke. Like getting compromise between an antelope and a starving lion.
Have British politicians ever been held in such contempt as they are right now?
At least in the catastrophe of the Iraq War you could accept that Blair argued his case passionately and eloquently, and his opponents- like Robin Cook - were equally articulate and plausible (and, it turned out, much wiser than Blair).
There is no one on any side of this argument who is emerging with credit, certainly not the turncoat Tiggers, certainly not the ultra-Brexiteers, and certainly not Corbyn's Labour. Stupid mediocrity and desperate careerism prevail throughout.
Arlene Foster, the leader of the DUP, says that her party did want to get a deal.
"But we feel, very fundamentally, that the backstop in that withdrawal agreement makes it impossible for us to sign up to the withdrawal agreement," she said.
"And you know what, I regret that because we wanted to get a deal, a deal that worked for the whole of the Union
Ken Clarke's option came closest to victory. It's not to the Conservative Party's credit that he never became their leader.
Wasn’t this all expected? The point is we can rule out those that were miles off and concentrate on the ones that were close. Ken and Beckett
The Telegraph reported last Saturday May could shift to her Deal plus permanent Customs Union if MV3 fails, so Clarke's being closest means it could be the end result of Brexit
B - (Baron: No deal) 160 v 400 D - (Boles: CM2) 188 v 283 H - (Eustace: EFTA+EEA) 65 v 377 J - (Clarke: WA+CU) 264 v 272 K - (Corbyn: Labour deal) 237 v 307 L - (Cherry: Revoke to avoid no deal) 184 v 293 M - (Beckett: WA+referendum) 268 v 295 O - (Fysh: Malthouse B ) 139 v 422
So Commons votes down everything on first round but May Deal + permanent Customs Union closest and loses by just 8
Also revoke Article 50 gets more votes than No Deal
"Deal + CU" and "Deal or Remain decided by referendum" look like the two potentially viable options.
Yes, both more popular than the government's shit deal.
Er, it's the EU's shit deal
It's the shit deal negotiated between the government and the EU whose parameters of shitness were dictated mainly by the government's shit red lines. But at least we can agree it's shit.
And some MPs have the gall to complaint that May is ignoring them or treating them badly. She may well have been doing so, she deserves much criticisim indeed, but so many of those MPs are just trying to distract from the fact none of them have a clue and all are still insisting on the same thing May is - do what I say.
It is difficult to be sure, but one assumes an MV3 would have attracted votes in the 260s.
On those grounds, can we just restrict the vote to May’s Deal v May’s Deal + Customs Union, and then have a further vote pls on whether or not to add a confirmatory referendum?
B - (Baron: No deal) 160 v 400 D - (Boles: CM2) 188 v 283 H - (Eustace: EFTA+EEA) 65 v 377 J - (Clarke: WA+CU) 264 v 272 K - (Corbyn: Labour deal) 237 v 307 L - (Cherry: Revoke to avoid no deal) 184 v 293 M - (Beckett: WA+referendum) 268 v 295 O - (Fysh: Malthouse B ) 139 v 422
All NO
AV on Monday?!
The 160 for No Deal is quite remarkable.
That's a whole mess of We're Not Compromising......
Any data if DUP and TIG voted as blocks on indicative votes, and how assorted independents voted? If things come to tight crunch votes in future there could be some indication there.
Have British politicians ever been held in such contempt as they are right now?
At least in the catastrophe of the Iraq War you could accept that Blair argued his case passionately and eloquently, and his opponents- like Robin Cook - were equally articulate and plausible (and, it turned out, much wiser than Blair).
There is no one on any side of this argument who is emerging with credit, certainly not the turncoat Tiggers, certainly not the ultra-Brexiteers, and certainly not Corbyn's Labour. Stupid mediocrity and desperate careerism prevail throughout.
I think May has emerged with credit. I certainly like her more now than I did 2 years ago
So Commons votes down everything on first round but May Deal + permanent Customs Union closest and loses by just 8
Also revoke Article 50 gets more votes than No Deal
"Deal + CU" and "Deal or Remain decided by referendum" look like the two potentially viable options.
Indeed. The indicative vote round one has done its job. Usual overreaction bullshit on PB.
From someone who obsessively spouts pure unmitigated hatred about Laura K whenever she is mentioned no matter how trivially I don't think you are in any position to get on a high horse about people responding with instant, emotive reactions to something actually important.
Given Parliament has rejected all these options tonight and given Bercow's insistence on not bringing back what's rejected, what's the point of Monday?
Awful lot of overreacting going on, considering everyone knew all options were going to fail first time round.
Some predictions in the commentariat had single options narrowly passing.
Regardless, it is one thing to be very sure all options would fail first time around and another thing entirely to actually see it occur. I don't think it unfair for people to have a faint hope that MPs who have been whinging endlessly about Brexit might actually be a little more decisive than this.
B - (Baron: No deal) 160 v 400 D - (Boles: CM2) 188 v 283 H - (Eustace: EFTA+EEA) 65 v 377 J - (Clarke: WA+CU) 264 v 272 K - (Corbyn: Labour deal) 237 v 307 L - (Cherry: Revoke to avoid no deal) 184 v 293 M - (Beckett: WA+referendum) 268 v 295 O - (Fysh: Malthouse B ) 139 v 422
All NO
AV on Monday?!
The 160 for No Deal is quite remarkable.
Not really, at least 40% of the country backs No Deal in most polls, 160/650 MPs for No Deal is not even 30% of the Commons. So MPs are significantly less supportive of No Deal than voters as a whole
Given Parliament has rejected all these options tonight and given Bercow's insistence on not bringing back what's rejected, what's the point of Monday?
Given Parliament has rejected all these options tonight and given Bercow's insistence on not bringing back what's rejected, what's the point of Monday?
It is not just tonight that most of them have been rejected - most of them have been rejected in other votes prior to today.
But Bercow is choosing to ignore the rules on those he is seeking to enforce on the MV issue
So Commons votes down everything on first round but May Deal + permanent Customs Union closest and loses by just 8
Also revoke Article 50 gets more votes than No Deal
"Deal + CU" and "Deal or Remain decided by referendum" look like the two potentially viable options.
Indeed. The indicative vote round one has done its job. Usual overreaction bullshit on PB.
From someone who obsessively spouts pure unmitigated hatred about Laura K whenever she is mentioned no matter how trivially I don't think you are in any position to get on a high horse about people responding with instant, emotive reactions to something actually important.
So. May's Deal still not in order to be voted on again, and would be defeated again. And all of the alternatives - most of which were a problem for the EU - have been rejected most of them substantially.
So, it remains Revoke or No Deal. May announcing that she's off- does that increase or decrease the prospects of May revoking in the final hour before we crash out?
Given Parliament has rejected all these options tonight and given Bercow's insistence on not bringing back what's rejected, what's the point of Monday?
So. May's Deal still not in order to be voted on again, and would be defeated again. And all of the alternatives - most of which were a problem for the EU - have been rejected most of them substantially.
So, it remains Revoke or No Deal. May announcing that she's off- does that increase or decrease the prospects of May revoking in the final hour before we crash out?
Can't May now just get on a plane to Brussels and sign the bloody deal? The HoC is too broken to even ask it the time of day. With a fucking great clock over all their heads.....
Seriously like seriously, every single one even with cabinet abstaining....the hoc again showing they are brilliant at knowing what they don't want, and fucking useless at showing what it does want.
So. May's Deal still not in order to be voted on again, and would be defeated again. And all of the alternatives - most of which were a problem for the EU - have been rejected most of them substantially.
So, it remains Revoke or No Deal. May announcing that she's off- does that increase or decrease the prospects of May revoking in the final hour before we crash out?
Revoke and No Deal were both heavily defeated, the path of least resistance is indefinite extensions.
B - (Baron: No deal) 160 v 400 D - (Boles: CM2) 188 v 283 H - (Eustace: EFTA+EEA) 65 v 377 J - (Clarke: WA+CU) 264 v 272 K - (Corbyn: Labour deal) 237 v 307 L - (Cherry: Revoke to avoid no deal) 184 v 293 M - (Beckett: WA+referendum) 268 v 295 O - (Fysh: Malthouse B ) 139 v 422
All NO
AV on Monday?!
The 160 for No Deal is quite remarkable.
That's a whole mess of We're Not Compromising......
A bunch of crackpots who know their doctrine has zero chance of carrying
Given Parliament has rejected all these options tonight and given Bercow's insistence on not bringing back what's rejected, what's the point of Monday?
Given Parliament has rejected all these options tonight and given Bercow's insistence on not bringing back what's rejected, what's the point of Monday?
Haven't they explicitly given permission for these to be brought back?
Although it does rather illustrate why the circumstances we find ourselves in justify an exception to the usual rule about not bringing things back if rejected preciously. If it is ok for these it is ok for others.
So. May's Deal still not in order to be voted on again, and would be defeated again. And all of the alternatives - most of which were a problem for the EU - have been rejected most of them substantially.
So, it remains Revoke or No Deal. May announcing that she's off- does that increase or decrease the prospects of May revoking in the final hour before we crash out?
Nah. She'll rather hand Boris the No Deal Brexit as she departs.
Comments
EDIT Clarke is even closer. Those are the two serious contenders now.
The answer is WA plus CU plus a confirmatory referendum
Whether MPs will get there on Monday remains to be seen
“The sight of all those MPs, their faces collapsed into their chins, poring over their ballot papers in the hope that Bercow would call bingo, before discovering that they had failed to vote for anything at all, was the funniest thing ever. Like a bunch of befuddled OAPs.”
Reading people like Iris Murdoch or E. M. Forster has made me think that one of the advantages of being a fiction writer might be the option to torment, knock off, or otherwise punish stylised versions of people one dislikes. BJ offers much scope for that I think.
At least in the catastrophe of the Iraq War you could accept that Blair argued his case passionately and eloquently, and his opponents- like Robin Cook - were equally articulate and plausible (and, it turned out, much wiser than Blair).
There is no one on any side of this argument who is emerging with credit, certainly not the turncoat Tiggers, certainly not the ultra-Brexiteers, and certainly not Corbyn's Labour. Stupid mediocrity and desperate careerism prevail throughout.
"But we feel, very fundamentally, that the backstop in that withdrawal agreement makes it impossible for us to sign up to the withdrawal agreement," she said.
"And you know what, I regret that because we wanted to get a deal, a deal that worked for the whole of the Union
What a sanctimonious pile of drivel.
No deal got smashed to be honest.
On those grounds, can we just restrict the vote to May’s Deal v May’s Deal + Customs Union, and then have a further vote pls on whether or not to add a confirmatory referendum?
Exactly.
It’s jacked it up. If it had been scored two weeks ago beforehand it’d have got well under 100 votes.
Twats.
That’s the first lot I would throw out of parliament.
Regardless, it is one thing to be very sure all options would fail first time around and another thing entirely to actually see it occur. I don't think it unfair for people to have a faint hope that MPs who have been whinging endlessly about Brexit might actually be a little more decisive than this.
And strictly speaking all of them were allowed to vote for any of the options - many people have resigned in order to do what they want.
But Bercow is choosing to ignore the rules on those he is seeking to enforce on the MV issue
So, it remains Revoke or No Deal. May announcing that she's off- does that increase or decrease the prospects of May revoking in the final hour before we crash out?
The Executive cannot get its deal through.
The public do not want to have another say.
Let’s just ask the Queen to throw a coin.
May's Deal versus Remain. Then an end, Please.
Although it does rather illustrate why the circumstances we find ourselves in justify an exception to the usual rule about not bringing things back if rejected preciously. If it is ok for these it is ok for others.
"Your shit sandwich buffet, Prime Minister...."
I think there might be a majority for that.
And Grieve is a legal genius.
Belgium managed without a government for a long period not so long ago - I am up for giving it a try