If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
If the people voted for political choice A, those who want political choice B will still try to achieve it. That's how all politics in a democracy works.
In 2015, when the people voted for a Conservative government, the Labour party didn't shut up shop. No, it continued campaigning for what it believes in. In 1997, when the people voted in a Labour government, the Conservative party didn't shut up shop. It continued campaigning for what it believes in. When Eurosceptics have lost votes, they've kept pushing for us to leave the EU, for decades. When Europhiles lose votes, they'll keep pushing for us to stay in or have a close relationship.
What about we stop complaining that our political opponents try to achieve their ends?
If only there was a *fairly* popular MP from the Leave side with the credentials to become Prime Minister, who could possibly peel away enough Leavers from Raab and then self-detonate... someone ruthless enough to run a kamikaze candidature for the Tory leadership... then they might get someone reasonable in.
If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
If the people voted for political choice A, those who want political choice B will still try to achieve it. That's how all politics in a democracy works.
In 2015, when the people voted for a Conservative government, the Labour party didn't shut up shop. No, it continued campaigning for what it believes in. In 1997, when the people voted in a Labour government, the Conservative party didn't shut up shop. It continued campaigning for what it believes in. When Eurosceptics have lost votes, they've kept pushing for us to leave the EU, for decades. When Europhiles lose votes, they'll keep pushing for us to stay in or have a close relationship.
What about we stop complaining that our political opponents try to achieve their ends?
Governments are elected every 4-5 years, and everyone accepts that. The referendum was sold to us by the PM who called it as a once in a generation decision.
Gammon pushes his luck with the authorities and then cashes in for clickbait
He's a Remainer.
First rule of air-travel. Do NOT upset security staff. One does occasionally meet one who's happy and cheerful but it's rare.
You're telling me?
I cannot explain why airport security staff keep on pulling me over.
Something to do with the shoes, surely... ?
My favourite was the fellow traveller whose baggage was thoroughly searched at Southampton. He had just come from South Africa and like me was going to Alderney.
If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
If the people voted for political choice A, those who want political choice B will still try to achieve it. That's how all politics in a democracy works.
In 2015, when the people voted for a Conservative government, the Labour party didn't shut up shop. No, it continued campaigning for what it believes in. In 1997, when the people voted in a Labour government, the Conservative party didn't shut up shop. It continued campaigning for what it believes in. When Eurosceptics have lost votes, they've kept pushing for us to leave the EU, for decades. When Europhiles lose votes, they'll keep pushing for us to stay in or have a close relationship.
What about we stop complaining that our political opponents try to achieve their ends?
Governments are elected every 4-5 years, and everyone accepts that. The referendum was sold to us by the PM who called it as a once in a generation decision.
Give it a rest, we have been round this a thousand times !
If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
If the people voted for political choice A, those who want political choice B will still try to achieve it. That's how all politics in a democracy works.
In 2015, when the people voted for a Conservative government, the Labour party didn't shut up shop. No, it continued campaigning for what it believes in. In 1997, when the people voted in a Labour government, the Conservative party didn't shut up shop. It continued campaigning for what it believes in. When Eurosceptics have lost votes, they've kept pushing for us to leave the EU, for decades. When Europhiles lose votes, they'll keep pushing for us to stay in or have a close relationship.
What about we stop complaining that our political opponents try to achieve their ends?
Governments are elected every 4-5 years, and everyone accepts that. The referendum was sold to us by the PM who called it as a once in a generation decision.
Give it a rest, we have been round this a thousand times !
It's the people that conflate Elections governed by the FTPA with "Once in a generation" votes who need to give it a rest
If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
If the people voted for political choice A, those who want political choice B will still try to achieve it. That's how all politics in a democracy works.
In 2015, when the people voted for a Conservative government, the Labour party didn't shut up shop. No, it continued campaigning for what it believes in. In 1997, when the people voted in a Labour government, the Conservative party didn't shut up shop. It continued campaigning for what it believes in. When Eurosceptics have lost votes, they've kept pushing for us to leave the EU, for decades. When Europhiles lose votes, they'll keep pushing for us to stay in or have a close relationship.
What about we stop complaining that our political opponents try to achieve their ends?
Governments are elected every 4-5 years, and everyone accepts that. The referendum was sold to us by the PM who called it as a once in a generation decision.
Give it a rest, we have been round this a thousand times !
And you are still wrong. Perhaps it is you who should give it a rest instead.
He seems not to understand that once we crash out - in 10 days time - there is no WA to be renegotiated. We are a third country then, no different - as a matter of EU law - to Zimbabwe.
Friday: What I think government should move/do = Approval for WA, but request further negotiation on PD to make CU central objective.
The best bet would be just to pass the WA without any PD and then we decide where we want to go next with the trade arrangements through a general election.
He seems not to understand that once we crash out - in 10 days time - there is no WA to be renegotiated. We are a third country then, no different - as a matter of EU law - to Zimbabwe.
The European Council decision on extension already rules out changing the withdrawal agreement.
Such an extension excludes any re-opening of the Withdrawal Agreement. Any unilateral commitment, statement or other act by the United Kingdom should be compatible with the letter and the spiritof the Withdrawal Agreement.
If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
If the people voted for political choice A, those who want political choice B will still try to achieve it. That's how all politics in a democracy works.
In 2015, when the people voted for a Conservative government, the Labour party didn't shut up shop. No, it continued campaigning for what it believes in. In 1997, when the people voted in a Labour government, the Conservative party didn't shut up shop. It continued campaigning for what it believes in. When Eurosceptics have lost votes, they've kept pushing for us to leave the EU, for decades. When Europhiles lose votes, they'll keep pushing for us to stay in or have a close relationship.
What about we stop complaining that our political opponents try to achieve their ends?
At least elected governments get a chance to implement their policies.
Imagine for a moment a scenario where a Conservative government took office in 2010, yet was not allowed to pass any legislative or fiscal measure to take effect before 2013 so that the policies of the previous government continued in the meantime, at which point the Speaker dismissed the government on the grounds that the opinion polls had moved ever so slightly against it and he had decided that the opposition should take over and continue where they left off.
That is what it must feel like to be a supporter of Leave nearly 3 years on from the referendum.
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
This man was a minister of the crown in the present government. That is terrifying.
Mark Francois was a Minister of State in the previous government.
You're not making me feel better. Imagine being a backbencher who hadn't held a position and those two had. It would be practically defamatory.
Are MPs panicking yet? 9 hours away and my distanced impression is that they all still believe their right and all is required is every other MP to understand this.
Personally I think they're right not to be panicking just now. The Letwin process (another good name for an airport novel) is being followed and yesterday's indicative votes were a lot more illuminating than I had expected. Two options command real support in Parliament - a lot more than Theresa May's deal. If those three are put through from judges' houses to the live show next Monday, we can reasonably hope matters will become a bit clearer still then.
You are being uncharacteristically optimistic.
I am assuming that we crash out with No Deal on 12 April, which is the Friday before Palm Sunday and Holy Week. Somehow that feels appropriate. We are in need of miracles.
I generally find myself in complete agreement with your incisive analyses Ms Cyclefree but in this case I do not follow the logic - seems more likely to me that May will seek a long extension and then submit her resignation immediately. The EU will accept that her departure represents the major political shift they are looking for as a condition of granting the extension.
Ultimately the extension will lead to continued membership, either because Brexit will be formally reversed or through a form of BINO that will be very close to full membership.
If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
If the people voted for political choice A, those who want political choice B will still try to achieve it. That's how all politics in a democracy works.
In 2015, when the people voted for a Conservative government, the Labour party didn't shut up shop. No, it continued campaigning for what it believes in. In 1997, when the people voted in a Labour government, the Conservative party didn't shut up shop. It continued campaigning for what it believes in. When Eurosceptics have lost votes, they've kept pushing for us to leave the EU, for decades. When Europhiles lose votes, they'll keep pushing for us to stay in or have a close relationship.
What about we stop complaining that our political opponents try to achieve their ends?
At least elected governments get a chance to implement their policies.
Imagine for a moment a scenario where a Conservative government took office in 2010, yet was not allowed to pass any legislative or fiscal measure to take effect before 2013 so that the policies of the previous government continued in the meantime, at which point the Speaker dismissed the government on the grounds that the opinion polls had moved ever so slightly against it and he had decided that the opposition should take over and continue where they left off.
That is what it must feel like to be a supporter of Leave nearly 3 years on from the referendum.
Mr. grss, the police trying to enforce social norms rather than the law is ridiculous. It also rather harms their case that they have insufficient resources if an inspector has time to waste ringing someone up for being mean on the internet.
If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
Yep. They have absolutely no interest in democracy, only in staying part of the EU with or without the support of the people.
Just like the Brexiteers have overlooked the first referendum which was supposed to settle the matter for all time.
...and how Farage pretty much said he would start agitating for another referendum had they lost the last one. I personally think the previous referendum (with all its flaws) should be enacted, but it is for parliament to decide how. There then should be a further referendum on negotiations to re-join in 5 years, next time with clear alternatives. Surely that will be "democratic"? Academic of course, because the EU probably won't want us back, but we can but try. We will be the hokey cokey member!
I mean, I'm pretty anti police, but I'm also pretty anti people being god awful on the internet.
We have two options: social stigma, or legal recourse. If people keep telling everyone that social stigma is = censorship, then legal recourse is all their is. I don't think people should be able to go on the internet and say "political speech" about things that are clearly bad. "All black people should be enslaved again" should not be okay to say. "Gas the Jews" should not be okay. "Trans people don't exist" similarly. Medical understanding of trans people has been around for ~100 years, and a cultural understanding for a lot longer (Native American customs, Torahnic Judaism, and many other non European cultures have a history of accepting non binary and trans people throughout history). Indeed, the first book burnings by the Nazis were of doctors who were studying trans medicine. All speech is political. "Bring the Caliphate to the Infidel" is political; it is also god awful and shouldn't be tolerated.
Springtime for Hitler.
Satire is different from endorsement (if that is the point you're trying to make)
Although there is a very good argument for why some art that does portray these sorts of things should try better to not look so... cool. The Producers provides material that only mocks Nazis, and cannot be coopted by the movement in a positive light, whereas something like Fight Club, which is obviously anti toxic masculinity, has provided a blue print for toxicity within certain circles (it popularised the snowflake epithet as well)
What you also need to remember is that 5400 Conservative Councillors are defending their own seats on May 2nd in the local elections. And a further 4000-ish are standing in seats the Party does not currently hold. It's the biggest election in the local election cycle because a large number of smaller districts are standing.
Say the number is 9000 Conservatives standing. That's probably 10pc of the party membership. Many have spouses as members. And the activists will also be helping out too.
Somewhere between 20-25% of the total membership and over half the Member activists. That is quite a constituency within the party - all of whom will have a vote.
The Golf Club bores never help, armchair Generals who can pontificate but wouldn't what to do with know a letterbox at 100 paces if given 200 leaflets to deliver. They're too busy posting online when everyone else is hard at work!
Most of those 9000 Council candidates, their families and activist friends are in despair. Upto half the part's membership. Leaflets are on hold. Canvassing isn't happening.
And I'm not sure that these real grassroots be quite so enthusiastic to back a hardliner as the betting market indicates given that they have made their own seats so vulnerable.
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot.
Still, it isn't 1995 in local government terms (it might be 1991 or 1999). Most councillors can be pretty sure of being re-elected.
Really? A bad night for the Tories here is 10 losses out of 13 defences. None of them look safe right now. Are we typical?
Any new PM has to be a Leaver who will own the consequences and not allow the Tory nutjobs to blame their “not a true believer status “.
Of course these so called believers only want the job when they can avoid most of the flak . Spineless gutless chancers who deserve contempt .
Any new PM needs to be someone who puts the interests of the country - rather than his or her party - first.
Fat chance.
Most PMs won't see the difference and quite rightly too actually.
The way I see it is that whether we end up like Norway, Switzerland or Canada the UK will be fine. The EU is not the end of the world.
If we end up like Venezuela we won't be fine.
Anything that stops Corbyn is for the good of the country.
[Corbynistas will no doubt have the same logic but with names changed]
If Corbyn does get in, it will be because the Conservatives lost their one big USP; the grown up party that looks after the economy through providing stable conditions for business. Brexit fanatics have thoroughly burned that hard won USP. Now they are just a pathetic bunch of White English nationalists wearing blasers and brogues.
Part of me blames Farage for quitting so soon after the referendum.; He should have known that the Remain leaning HofC would try to block Brexit. I listened to this very interesting and entertaining interview of Patrick O'Flynn by Matt Forde earlier this week. O'Flynn says that UKIP tried to fight the 2017 GE but what did they have to say when the Tories were wearing UKIPs clothes other than "We thought of it first"?
I mean, I'm pretty anti police, but I'm also pretty anti people being god awful on the internet.
We have two options: social stigma, or legal recourse. If people keep telling everyone that social stigma is = censorship, then legal recourse is all their is. I don't think people should be able to go on the internet and say "political speech" about things that are clearly bad. "All black people should be enslaved again" should not be okay to say. "Gas the Jews" should not be okay. "Trans people don't exist" similarly. Medical understanding of trans people has been around for ~100 years, and a cultural understanding for a lot longer (Native American customs, Torahnic Judaism, and many other non European cultures have a history of accepting non binary and trans people throughout history). Indeed, the first book burnings by the Nazis were of doctors who were studying trans medicine. All speech is political. "Bring the Caliphate to the Infidel" is political; it is also god awful and shouldn't be tolerated.
I agree but police calling round because they are saying a man is not a woman is taking the biscuit. Are their not enough real crimes , ie like the daily stream of knife murders , that they could perhaps be looking at.
If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
Yep. They have absolutely no interest in democracy, only in staying part of the EU with or without the support of the people.
Just like the Brexiteers have overlooked the first referendum which was supposed to settle the matter for all time.
...and how Farage pretty much said he would start agitating for another referendum had they lost the last one. I personally think the previous referendum (with all its flaws) should be enacted, but it is for parliament to decide how. There then should be a further referendum on negotiations to re-join in 5 years, next time with clear alternatives. Surely that will be "democratic"? Academic of course, because the EU probably won't want us back, but we can but try. We will be the hokey cokey member!
The only way to overturn a referendum is to elect a government committed to doing so, otherwise we will be having 4-5 refs a decade.
Personally I think they're right not to be panicking just now. The Letwin process (another good name for an airport novel) is being followed and yesterday's indicative votes were a lot more illuminating than I had expected. Two options command real support in Parliament - a lot more than Theresa May's deal. If those three are put through from judges' houses to the live show next Monday, we can reasonably hope matters will become a bit clearer still then.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. Let's make the most favourable assumption, that one of the options (say the Customs Union one) somehow gets support with a decent majority next Monday. What happens next to turn that into a solution? Firstly it requires the executive to do something it is not only dead set against, but also is even more strongly opposed by much of the governing party.
Secondly it requires a series of steps including renegotiation with the EU and a series of votes in parliament, which would require Labour whipping in favour to get the government out of the hole - is that likely?
Thirdly, if there's no election, we'd still have the hung parliament and we'd almost certainly have a new PM who is more ERG-friendly than Theresa May - is that new PM really going to be able to deliver a much softer Brexit even if he or she wanted to? Alternatively, if here is an election is anything much going to change?
The process just looks too flaky for it to be something which would resolve the situation. At best it looks as though it would simply prolong the chaos.
Part of me blames Farage for quitting so soon after the referendum.; He should have known that the Remain leaning HofC would try to block Brexit. I listened to this very interesting and entertaining interview of Patrick O'Flynn by Matt Forde earlier this week. O'Flynn says that UKIP tried to fight the 2017 GE but what did they have to say when the Tories were wearing UKIPs clothes other than "We thought of it first"?
Also shines a light into why UKIPpers have left, and why they've had so many leaders in the last three years
It has always just been about ego for Farage, just as it is for Boris Johnson. Farage only joined UKIP because he was turned down by the Conservatives. That was back in the day when it was a sensible party of right of centre moderates
If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
Yep. They have absolutely no interest in democracy, only in staying part of the EU with or without the support of the people.
Just like the Brexiteers have overlooked the first referendum which was supposed to settle the matter for all time.
The first referendum on our membership of the European Union was held in 2016.
The idea that people who hold strong views will just back down if they lose a vote is, at best, naive. Remainers appear to be the only politically engaged people in the world who are expected to just give up. In many countries in the world the losing side would resort to unlawful measures to achieve their results. Remainers seek lawful methods to do so but are held to an even higher standard than that. They are expected to treat a three year old vote as a Holy Writ that must, under all circumstances, be respected, whatever the intervening events. Similarly there are still Irish Republicans out there who feel the same way about the 1919 General Election - holding that no subsequent vote can be valid until the Republic they say it ratified is implemented. Both are at the wrong end of the argument.
So we have a government motion about the EU tomorrow, presumably MV3. Tomorrow will be a morning session and will confirm with the speakers ruling. Sounds like the statement was put together at the last minute.
And easter recess looking unlikely (or at least to be shorter)
Personally I think they're right not to be panicking just now. The Letwin process (another good name for an airport novel) is being followed and yesterday's indicative votes were a lot more illuminating than I had expected. Two options command real support in Parliament - a lot more than Theresa May's deal. If those three are put through from judges' houses to the live show next Monday, we can reasonably hope matters will become a bit clearer still then.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. Let's make the most favourable assumption, that one of the options (say the Customs Union one) somehow gets support with a decent majority next Monday. What happens next to turn that into a solution? Firstly it requires the executive to do something it is not only dead set against, but also is even more strongly opposed by much of the governing party.
Secondly it requires a series of steps including renegotiation with the EU and a series of votes in parliament, which would require Labour whipping in favour to get the government out of the hole - is that likely?
Thirdly, if there's no election, we'd still have the hung parliament and we'd almost certainly have a new PM who is more ERG-friendly than Theresa May - is that new PM really going to be able to deliver a much softer Brexit even if he or she wanted to? Alternatively, if here is an election is anything much going to change?
The process just looks too flaky for it to be something which would resolve the situation. At best it looks as though it would simply prolong the chaos.
Labour will always find a reason to vote against it. It's what oppositions do. It's either the wrong kind of customs union, or fails to satisfy a new half dozen set of requirements.
Part of me blames Farage for quitting so soon after the referendum.; He should have known that the Remain leaning HofC would try to block Brexit. I listened to this very interesting and entertaining interview of Patrick O'Flynn by Matt Forde earlier this week. O'Flynn says that UKIP tried to fight the 2017 GE but what did they have to say when the Tories were wearing UKIPs clothes other than "We thought of it first"?
Also shines a light into why UKIPpers have left, and why they've had so many leaders in the last three years
It has always just been about ego for Farage, just as it is for Boris Johnson. Farage only joined UKIP because he was turned down by the Conservatives. That was back in the day when it was a sensible party of right of centre moderates
It still is. May is further left than all the Tory leaders since Heath.
Certainly it is closer to the centre right than Labour is to being a party of the centre left.
If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
Yep. They have absolutely no interest in democracy, only in staying part of the EU with or without the support of the people.
Just like the Brexiteers have overlooked the first referendum which was supposed to settle the matter for all time.
The first referendum on our membership of the European Union was held in 2016.
That is just silly pedantry.
No its not. The European Community of 1975 and the European Union of 2016 are not the same thing and there's more than just a name that's different.
To be honest I think the problem with Mike's post isn't the difference between the EC and EU, it's the idea that we shouldn't be able to change our minds 40+ years later
The best bet would be just to pass the WA without any PD and then we decide where we want to go next with the trade arrangements through a general election.
Same parliamentary arithmetic though:
DUP say no because it's the only word they know. 10-20 ERG ultras say no because they hate Europe above all else. 5ish Tory remainers, TIG and plenty Labour backbenchers say no because they love Europe above all else. Corbyn says no because he won't agree to anything the Tories propose, regardless what it is.
Reminder that the Guardian are projecting a majority of 42 AGAINST May's deal (and even that's making the generous assumption that Jacob Rees-Mogg and friends will vote for it):-
Only Labour, surely? The DUP are opposed to the WA itself
The DUP aren't about to have any bluff called. Because remarkably enough, they aren't actually bluffing.
If a form of WA passes without the DUP holding the balance, even given their 30+ strong caucus, then the DUP bluff is only truly called at a subsequent VONC. And that may well not be a bluff either.
If we had a 2nd referendum and if the people confirmed they wished to leave then the Remainers would still obfuscate and try and delay matters.
Yep. They have absolutely no interest in democracy, only in staying part of the EU with or without the support of the people.
Just like the Brexiteers have overlooked the first referendum which was supposed to settle the matter for all time.
...and how Farage pretty much said he would start agitating for another referendum had they lost the last one. I personally think the previous referendum (with all its flaws) should be enacted, but it is for parliament to decide how. There then should be a further referendum on negotiations to re-join in 5 years, next time with clear alternatives. Surely that will be "democratic"? Academic of course, because the EU probably won't want us back, but we can but try. We will be the hokey cokey member!
The only way to overturn a referendum is to elect a government committed to doing so, otherwise we will be having 4-5 refs a decade.
It was a mischievous comment. I am not in favour of referenda. Look at the total mess this one has made, and the fact that those in favour of whichever side of the debate find ways to claim it says things it does not or that the natural conclusion of this means this or that. It is a nonsense to be obsessing of our EU membership when we have so many democratic deficits with our own domestic system. Perhaps we should call Brexit the opiate of the masses.
Only Labour, surely? The DUP are opposed to the WA itself
The DUP aren't about to have any bluff called. Because remarkably enough, they aren't actually bluffing.
If a form of WA passes without the DUP holding the balance, even given their 30+ strong caucus, then the DUP bluff is only truly called at a subsequent VONC. And that may well not be a bluff either.
I'd fully expect them to VONC the Gov't if the deal passes on Lab abstentions and ERG switchers.
Mr. grss, the police trying to enforce social norms rather than the law is ridiculous. It also rather harms their case that they have insufficient resources if an inspector has time to waste ringing someone up for being mean on the internet.
The problem for PC Plod is that if a crime is reported, they have to investigate, and that does include a certain amount of rudeness on the net. Most is prerty trivial, but in amongst it are some serious threats.
Only Labour, surely? The DUP are opposed to the WA itself
The DUP aren't about to have any bluff called. Because remarkably enough, they aren't actually bluffing.
Well they are politicians and politicians generally consider issues in the round in order to gain greatest overall advantage. At some point the DUP may twig that they are at a maximum of influence, especially if the HoC finds some way through. Support TM's deal and they sail on as kingmakers. Blow it for her, and they lose that and much else besides for the people they purport to represent in NI.
I still think some kind of whole-UK backstop would bring them on board but then as @Richard_Nabavi has pointed out the mechanics are working against everything apart from May's deal atm.
Personally I think they're right not to be panicking just now. The Letwin process (another good name for an airport novel) is being followed and yesterday's indicative votes were a lot more illuminating than I had expected. Two options command real support in Parliament - a lot more than Theresa May's deal. If those three are put through from judges' houses to the live show next Monday, we can reasonably hope matters will become a bit clearer still then.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. Let's make the most favourable assumption, that one of the options (say the Customs Union one) somehow gets support with a decent majority next Monday. What happens next to turn that into a solution? Firstly it requires the executive to do something it is not only dead set against, but also is even more strongly opposed by much of the governing party.
Secondly it requires a series of steps including renegotiation with the EU and a series of votes in parliament, which would require Labour whipping in favour to get the government out of the hole - is that likely?
Thirdly, if there's no election, we'd still have the hung parliament and we'd almost certainly have a new PM who is more ERG-friendly than Theresa May - is that new PM really going to be able to deliver a much softer Brexit even if he or she wanted to? Alternatively, if here is an election is anything much going to change?
The process just looks too flaky for it to be something which would resolve the situation. At best it looks as though it would simply prolong the chaos.
The logical conclusion if the government will not implement the policy that it has been instructed to implement by the House of Commons on the most pressing subject of the day is that the government is replaced, in the short term at least, to deal with that policy requirement. That could be done fairly quickly. It might even have a Conservative in the top job.
Only Labour, surely? The DUP are opposed to the WA itself
The DUP aren't about to have any bluff called. Because remarkably enough, they aren't actually bluffing.
No. The DUP don't do bluff.
Their position is entirely predictable and has been predicted here many times in the past. The PM should follow PB - it's a better source of advice than the fools in the cabinet.
Personally I think they're right not to be panicking just now. The Letwin process (another good name for an airport novel) is being followed and yesterday's indicative votes were a lot more illuminating than I had expected. Two options command real support in Parliament - a lot more than Theresa May's deal. If those three are put through from judges' houses to the live show next Monday, we can reasonably hope matters will become a bit clearer still then.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. Let's make the most favourable assumption, that one of the options (say the Customs Union one) somehow gets support with a decent majority next Monday. What happens next to turn that into a solution? Firstly it requires the executive to do something it is not only dead set against, but also is even more strongly opposed by much of the governing party.
Secondly it requires a series of steps including renegotiation with the EU and a series of votes in parliament, which would require Labour whipping in favour to get the government out of the hole - is that likely?
Thirdly, if there's no election, we'd still have the hung parliament and we'd almost certainly have a new PM who is more ERG-friendly than Theresa May - is that new PM really going to be able to deliver a much softer Brexit even if he or she wanted to? Alternatively, if here is an election is anything much going to change?
The process just looks too flaky for it to be something which would resolve the situation. At best it looks as though it would simply prolong the chaos.
The logical conclusion if the government will not implement the policy that it has been instructed to implement by the House of Commons on the most pressing subject of the day is that the government is replaced, in the short term at least, to deal with that policy requirement. That could be done fairly quickly. It might even have a Conservative in the top job.
Okay, so that's the logical conclusion. What about what would actually happen?
The logical conclusion if the government will not implement the policy that it has been instructed to implement by the House of Commons on the most pressing subject of the day is that the government is replaced, in the short term at least, to deal with that policy requirement. That could be done fairly quickly. It might even have a Conservative in the top job.
True in theory, but it falls down when you start proposing a specific implementation of the idea, unless a large contingent splits from Labour and a large contingent splits from the Tories or somehow manages to boot out the hardline Brexiteers. Neither looks plausible to me.
Personally I think they're right not to be panicking just now. The Letwin process (another good name for an airport novel) is being followed and yesterday's indicative votes were a lot more illuminating than I had expected. Two options command real support in Parliament - a lot more than Theresa May's deal. If those three are put through from judges' houses to the live show next Monday, we can reasonably hope matters will become a bit clearer still then.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. Let's make the most favourable assumption, that one of the options (say the Customs Union one) somehow gets support with a decent majority next Monday. What happens next to turn that into a solution? Firstly it requires the executive to do something it is not only dead set against, but also is even more strongly opposed by much of the governing party.
Secondly it requires a series of steps including renegotiation with the EU and a series of votes in parliament, which would require Labour whipping in favour to get the government out of the hole - is that likely?
Thirdly, if there's no election, we'd still have the hung parliament and we'd almost certainly have a new PM who is more ERG-friendly than Theresa May - is that new PM really going to be able to deliver a much softer Brexit even if he or she wanted to? Alternatively, if here is an election is anything much going to change?
The process just looks too flaky for it to be something which would resolve the situation. At best it looks as though it would simply prolong the chaos.
The logical conclusion if the government will not implement the policy that it has been instructed to implement by the House of Commons on the most pressing subject of the day is that the government is replaced, in the short term at least, to deal with that policy requirement. That could be done fairly quickly. It might even have a Conservative in the top job.
Wouldn't the House have to unite around a replacement PM though? Who would command that breadth of respect?
Only Labour, surely? The DUP are opposed to the WA itself
The DUP aren't about to have any bluff called. Because remarkably enough, they aren't actually bluffing.
Well they are politicians and politicians generally consider issues in the round in order to gain greatest overall advantage. At some point the DUP may twig that they are at a maximum of influence, especially if the HoC finds some way through. Support TM's deal and they sail on as kingmakers. Blow it for her, and they lose that and much else besides for the people they purport to represent in NI.
I still think some kind of whole-UK backstop would bring them on board but then as @Richard_Nabavi has pointed out the mechanics are working against everything apart from May's deal atm.
They do not think that way and are fixated on their ancient cause, they will not dump their cause for any gain , they are not like the Westminster Tories, Labour or Lib Dems. Rightly or wrongly they have their principles and stick to them unlike the cretinous greedy grasping unprincipled lying cheating toerags at Westminster ( SNP excluded ).
The best bet would be just to pass the WA without any PD and then we decide where we want to go next with the trade arrangements through a general election.
Same parliamentary arithmetic though:
DUP say no because it's the only word they know. 10-20 ERG ultras say no because they hate Europe above all else. 5ish Tory remainers, TIG and plenty Labour backbenchers say no because they love Europe above all else. Corbyn says no because he won't agree to anything the Tories propose, regardless what it is.
A fair summation. Part of the problem is that all of those groups are trying to achieve their own aims and making up faux objections. Mr Thicky is the most disingenuous of the lot; he is manufacturing objections because he thinks it is the best way to destroy the Conservative Party, which is a fairly easy calculation even for someone of his limited intellect .
The Chinese company Huawei has been strongly criticised in a report by the body overseeing the security of its products in UK telecoms.
The report, issued by the National Cyber Security Centre, which is part of GCHQ, says it can provide "only limited assurance that the long-term security risks can be managed in the Huawei equipment currently deployed in the UK".
Reminder that the Guardian are projecting a majority of 42 AGAINST May's deal (and even that's making the generous assumption that Jacob Rees-Mogg and friends will vote for it):-
Looking at this, the only way I see it going through is with the Kyle/Wilson amendment saying the deal gets passed only with a referendum.
If that happens, you flip the 71-strong "Labour for a People's Vote" bloc. The Labour frontbench and 168 Labour loyalists probably still vote against (they don't think a "Tory Brexit deal" should even go through to a referendum), and you probably also put the 43 Rees-Mogg "Wavering Brexiters" back on the opposing side. The deal goes through 326 to 312.
Personally I think they're right not to be panicking just now. The Letwin process (another good name for an airport novel) is being followed and yesterday's indicative votes were a lot more illuminating than I had expected. Two options command real support in Parliament - a lot more than Theresa May's deal. If those three are put through from judges' houses to the live show next Monday, we can reasonably hope matters will become a bit clearer still then.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. Let's make the most favourable assumption, that one of the options (say the Customs Union one) somehow gets support with a decent majority next Monday. What happens next to turn that into a solution? Firstly it requires the executive to do something it is not only dead set against, but also is even more strongly opposed by much of the governing party.
Secondly it requires a series of steps including renegotiation with the EU and a series of votes in parliament, which would require Labour whipping in favour to get the government out of the hole - is that likely?
Thirdly, if there's no election, we'd still have the hung parliament and we'd almost certainly have a new PM who is more ERG-friendly than Theresa May - is that new PM really going to be able to deliver a much softer Brexit even if he or she wanted to? Alternatively, if here is an election is anything much going to change?
The process just looks too flaky for it to be something which would resolve the situation. At best it looks as though it would simply prolong the chaos.
The logical conclusion if the government will not implement the policy that it has been instructed to implement by the House of Commons on the most pressing subject of the day is that the government is replaced, in the short term at least, to deal with that policy requirement. That could be done fairly quickly. It might even have a Conservative in the top job.
Wouldn't the House have to unite around a replacement PM though? Who would command that breadth of respect?
Ken Clarke. It is unlikely to happen, but he has nothing to lose to lead a GNU
This is quite interesting . Just voting on the WA.
Because the point of contention is the future relationship . Any deal has to have the WA .
MPs need to wake up to reality .
Chris Lesley raising the point that both the WA and the PD have to be approved together. Section 13. 1. b) of the EU WA 2018 states:
"the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,"
Does "a resolution" mean a single resolution - i.e. at the same time?
I could see both Remainers and the ERG challenging this.
Personally I think they're right not to be panicking just now. The Letwin process (another good name for an airport novel) is being followed and yesterday's indicative votes were a lot more illuminating than I had expected. Two options command real support in Parliament - a lot more than Theresa May's deal. If those three are put through from judges' houses to the live show next Monday, we can reasonably hope matters will become a bit clearer still then.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. Let's make the most favourable assumption, that one of the options (say the Customs Union one) somehow gets support with a decent majority next Monday. What happens next to turn that into a solution? Firstly it requires the executive to do something it is not only dead set against, but also is even more strongly opposed by much of the governing party.
Secondly it requires a series of steps including renegotiation with the EU and a series of votes in parliament, which would require Labour whipping in favour to get the government out of the hole - is that likely?
Thirdly, if there's no election, we'd still have the hung parliament and we'd almost certainly have a new PM who is more ERG-friendly than Theresa May - is that new PM really going to be able to deliver a much softer Brexit even if he or she wanted to? Alternatively, if here is an election is anything much going to change?
The process just looks too flaky for it to be something which would resolve the situation. At best it looks as though it would simply prolong the chaos.
The logical conclusion if the government will not implement the policy that it has been instructed to implement by the House of Commons on the most pressing subject of the day is that the government is replaced, in the short term at least, to deal with that policy requirement. That could be done fairly quickly. It might even have a Conservative in the top job.
Wouldn't the House have to unite around a replacement PM though? Who would command that breadth of respect?
From the Conservative party alone:
a) Ken Clarke b) Oliver Letwin c) Dominic Grieve
Options from other parties are available.
The Prime Minister would need to consider her options carefully in practice if Parliament coalesces around another option. She might not want to implement it but she would be in contempt of Parliament if she didn't. Her choice would be whether to go against her own wishes or to facilitate the emergence of someone who could square the policy with their conscience. Or, I suppose, to try for a general election (good luck with that endeavour).
This is quite interesting . Just voting on the WA.
Because the point of contention is the future relationship . Any deal has to have the WA .
MPs need to wake up to reality .
The DUP and ERG true believers ARE opposed to the WA though. Labour aren't but they want Corbyn's Customs Union added on to the WA and will oppose a WA as it is a "blind Brexit" (Their words, not mine)
Personally I think they're right not to be panicking just now. The Letwin process (another good name for an airport novel) is being followed and yesterday's indicative votes were a lot more illuminating than I had expected. Two options command real support in Parliament - a lot more than Theresa May's deal. If those three are put through from judges' houses to the live show next Monday, we can reasonably hope matters will become a bit clearer still then.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. Let's make the most favourable assumption, that one of the options (say the Customs Union one) somehow gets support with a decent majority next Monday. What happens next to turn that into a solution? Firstly it requires the executive to do something it is not only dead set against, but also is even more strongly opposed by much of the governing party.
Secondly it requires a series of steps including renegotiation with the EU and a series of votes in parliament, which would require Labour whipping in favour to get the government out of the hole - is that likely?
Thirdly, if there's no election, we'd still have the hung parliament and we'd almost certainly have a new PM who is more ERG-friendly than Theresa May - is that new PM really going to be able to deliver a much softer Brexit even if he or she wanted to? Alternatively, if here is an election is anything much going to change?
The process just looks too flaky for it to be something which would resolve the situation. At best it looks as though it would simply prolong the chaos.
The logical conclusion if the government will not implement the policy that it has been instructed to implement by the House of Commons on the most pressing subject of the day is that the government is replaced, in the short term at least, to deal with that policy requirement. That could be done fairly quickly. It might even have a Conservative in the top job.
You know how departing PMs get their honours list, could May please have a 'remove the whip' list or actually why not kick upstairs the biggest bell-ends where they can get less TV coverage - Private Francois and Bellicose Bridgen would take a few weeks to understand they couldn't still be MPs....
Disappointed to see Mark Harper and Johnny Mercer in the 93.
Less surprised to see most of the usual suspects there.
Just completely, off-the-wall mad. That 93 Conservative - Conservative - MPs would defy a three-line whip in order to vote for legal chaos in two days time is something I never thought I'd see. It's the kind of thing one might have expected from a couple of fringe nutjob bearded Marxists in the Labour Party twenty years. Now in this vote the same Marxists and the rest of the Labour Party are the ones acting as responsible MPs. What the hell has happened to the Conservative Party?
Comments
In 2015, when the people voted for a Conservative government, the Labour party didn't shut up shop. No, it continued campaigning for what it believes in. In 1997, when the people voted in a Labour government, the Conservative party didn't shut up shop. It continued campaigning for what it believes in. When Eurosceptics have lost votes, they've kept pushing for us to leave the EU, for decades. When Europhiles lose votes, they'll keep pushing for us to stay in or have a close relationship.
What about we stop complaining that our political opponents try to achieve their ends?
That is all.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chaucer-Marion-Turner/dp/0691160090/
You don't get much more English than Chaucer.
He seems not to understand that once we crash out - in 10 days time - there is no WA to be renegotiated. We are a third country then, no different - as a matter of EU law - to Zimbabwe.
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/XT-20006-2019-INIT/en/pdf
Such an extension excludes any re-opening of the Withdrawal Agreement. Any unilateral commitment, statement or other act by the United Kingdom should be compatible with the letter and the spiritof the Withdrawal Agreement.
Any new PM has to be a Leaver who will own the consequences and not allow the Tory nutjobs to blame their “not a true believer status “.
Of course these so called believers only want the job when they can avoid most of the flak . Spineless gutless chancers who deserve contempt .
Imagine for a moment a scenario where a Conservative government took office in 2010, yet was not allowed to pass any legislative or fiscal measure to take effect before 2013 so that the policies of the previous government continued in the meantime, at which point the Speaker dismissed the government on the grounds that the opinion polls had moved ever so slightly against it and he had decided that the opposition should take over and continue where they left off.
That is what it must feel like to be a supporter of Leave nearly 3 years on from the referendum.
Ultimately the extension will lead to continued membership, either because Brexit will be formally reversed or through a form of BINO that will be very close to full membership.
Fat chance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_Callaghan_ministry
The way I see it is that whether we end up like Norway, Switzerland or Canada the UK will be fine. The EU is not the end of the world.
If we end up like Venezuela we won't be fine.
Anything that stops Corbyn is for the good of the country.
[Corbynistas will no doubt have the same logic but with names changed]
Although there is a very good argument for why some art that does portray these sorts of things should try better to not look so... cool. The Producers provides material that only mocks Nazis, and cannot be coopted by the movement in a positive light, whereas something like Fight Club, which is obviously anti toxic masculinity, has provided a blue print for toxicity within certain circles (it popularised the snowflake epithet as well)
https://player.fm/series/the-political-party/show-85-patrick-oflynn
Also shines a light into why UKIPpers have left, and why they've had so many leaders in the last three years
Secondly it requires a series of steps including renegotiation with the EU and a series of votes in parliament, which would require Labour whipping in favour to get the government out of the hole - is that likely?
Thirdly, if there's no election, we'd still have the hung parliament and we'd almost certainly have a new PM who is more ERG-friendly than Theresa May - is that new PM really going to be able to deliver a much softer Brexit even if he or she wanted to? Alternatively, if here is an election is anything much going to change?
The process just looks too flaky for it to be something which would resolve the situation. At best it looks as though it would simply prolong the chaos.
https://surfdrive.surf.nl/files/index.php/s/SXE72AWUNavenYs/download
And easter recess looking unlikely (or at least to be shorter)
Certainly it is closer to the centre right than Labour is to being a party of the centre left.
I guess we do now have to add some ERGers to that, but as a bloc they're still holding firm enough to effectively pose the same level of difficulty.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-03-27/division/D23CDA5C-4B12-46CF-915D-AA6C93A5DB0E/EUExitDayAmendment?outputType=Party
Same parliamentary arithmetic though:
DUP say no because it's the only word they know.
10-20 ERG ultras say no because they hate Europe above all else.
5ish Tory remainers, TIG and plenty Labour backbenchers say no because they love Europe above all else.
Corbyn says no because he won't agree to anything the Tories propose, regardless what it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_Callaghan_ministry#Irish_Nationalists
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/can-you-get-mays-deal-through-meaningful-vote-3
https://surfdrive.surf.nl/files/index.php/s/SXE72AWUNavenYs/download
..........Indeed, might help with anyone missing from TSEs list.
I still think some kind of whole-UK backstop would bring them on board but then as @Richard_Nabavi has pointed out the mechanics are working against everything apart from May's deal atm.
Their position is entirely predictable and has been predicted here many times in the past. The PM should follow PB - it's a better source of advice than the fools in the cabinet.
The report, issued by the National Cyber Security Centre, which is part of GCHQ, says it can provide "only limited assurance that the long-term security risks can be managed in the Huawei equipment currently deployed in the UK".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47732139
If that happens, you flip the 71-strong "Labour for a People's Vote" bloc. The Labour frontbench and 168 Labour loyalists probably still vote against (they don't think a "Tory Brexit deal" should even go through to a referendum), and you probably also put the 43 Rees-Mogg "Wavering Brexiters" back on the opposing side. The deal goes through 326 to 312.
Because the point of contention is the future relationship . Any deal has to have the WA .
MPs need to wake up to reality .
Less surprised to see most of the usual suspects there.
"the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,"
Does "a resolution" mean a single resolution - i.e. at the same time?
I could see both Remainers and the ERG challenging this.
a) Ken Clarke
b) Oliver Letwin
c) Dominic Grieve
Options from other parties are available.
The Prime Minister would need to consider her options carefully in practice if Parliament coalesces around another option. She might not want to implement it but she would be in contempt of Parliament if she didn't. Her choice would be whether to go against her own wishes or to facilitate the emergence of someone who could square the policy with their conscience. Or, I suppose, to try for a general election (good luck with that endeavour).
But Labour MP Alfred Broughton didn't vote due to ill health, heeding medical advice not to do so. He died a few days later.