Just completely, off-the-wall mad. That 93 Conservative - Conservative - MPs would vote for legal chaos in two days time is something I never thought I'd see.
A lot are just signalling, knowing the vote wasn't in doubt.
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 .
I find this line of argument ("MPs should just approve the withdrawal agreement, then they can argue it out about the future relationship afterwards") so bizarre. The fact that there's so little clarity about what comes at the end of the process, no binding guarantees that MPs can avoid what they see as the worst-case scenarios, is part of the problem. Why would they set off an irreversible process before they got those guarantees?
I bought a new phone the other day; I wouldn't have been impressed if I was told I had to cough up the money and tie myself into a 2-year contract first, and that we could then "argue it out" about what phone I'd actually get afterwards.
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 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?
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 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?
History will surely be kinder to TMay I reckon when the sheer impossibility of the people she had to deal with and the numbers of them in her own party (hence the failed election to dilute them). Making an enemy of the near-immaculate Chancellor was perhaps less wise.
The WA and future framework do not have to be approved in the same vote .
Both can be voted on at different times . As long as both pass that counts as ratification . There’s no danger in just approving the WA first.
Because you can still vote against the future framework later.
I'm not so sure you can split them.
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(b) 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.
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)
I think there are definitely strong political motivations to Labour's opposition. But not wanting to vote for the WA on its own is actually perfectly consistent with wanting modifications to the PD to soften Brexit. If the WA got through on its own, suddenly the DUP and ERG would get on-side for whatever May wanted to do with the PD, so getting a customs union (or whatever) added would be pretty much impossible.
However, thinking that through is a little complex, so from a political standpoint it'd probably be effective to embarrass them by pointing out that they claim they only want changes to the PD but are actually voting down the WA. That might have worked as a tactic a couple months ago (not necessarily to win votes, but as a weapon to use against Labour in general), though I now think it's gotten too late.
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 ).
Which is the accepted orthodoxy. And I think it's probably right in which case the backstop must be extended. But they are also politicians.
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?
Given a majority of Tory voters prefer No Deal to Remain under a third of MPs voting for No Deal and No extension makes Tory MPs more pro Remain than Tory voters
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 .
I find this line of argument ("MPs should just approve the withdrawal agreement, then they can argue it out about the future relationship afterwards") so bizarre. The fact that there's so little clarity about what comes at the end of the process, no binding guarantees that MPs can avoid what they see as the worst-case scenarios, is part of the problem. Why would they set off an irreversible process before they got those guarantees?
I bought a new phone the other day; I wouldn't have been impressed if I was told I had to cough up the money and tie myself into a 2-year contract first, and that we could then "argue it out" about what phone I'd actually get afterwards.
Because the process isn’t irreversible . They can still vote against the future framework which then stops ratification .
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 .
I find this line of argument ("MPs should just approve the withdrawal agreement, then they can argue it out about the future relationship afterwards") so bizarre. The fact that there's so little clarity about what comes at the end of the process, no binding guarantees that MPs can avoid what they see as the worst-case scenarios, is part of the problem. Why would they set off an irreversible process before they got those guarantees?
I bought a new phone the other day; I wouldn't have been impressed if I was told I had to cough up the money and tie myself into a 2-year contract first, and that we could then "argue it out" about what phone I'd actually get afterwards.
Although to be fair that uncertainty is the inevitable consequence of the EU refusing point-blank to hold substantive negotiations about the final relationship until after we've left. So there's no way round it.
The WA and future framework do not have to be approved in the same vote .
Both can be voted on at different times . As long as both pass that counts as ratification . There’s no danger in just approving the WA first.
Because you can still vote against the future framework later.
Here are the "reasons" parties will vote against the WA solely
DUP & Hardcore ERG - Actually properly oppose it including the backstop Labour - "Blind Brexit" SNP - "Won't pass a 'devastating' Tory Brexit, unless 'ratified' by the people" TIG - "Won't pass Brexit unless 'ratified' by the people"
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?
Given a majority of Tory voters prefer No Deal to Remain under a third of MPs voting for No Deal and No extension makes Tory MPs more pro Remain than Tory voters
The WA and future framework do not have to be approved in the same vote .
Both can be voted on at different times . As long as both pass that counts as ratification . There’s no danger in just approving the WA first.
Because you can still vote against the future framework later.
I'm not so sure you can split them.
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(b) 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.
It doesn’t say at the same time . The EU only want the WA voted through by tomorrow .
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?
Given a majority of Tory voters prefer No Deal to Remain under a third of MPs voting for No Deal and No extension makes Tory MPs more pro Remain than Tory voters
What's that got to do with anything? This wasn't a vote about whether the extension should take place, it was about ensuring that the short extension which is already irrevocable is correctly reflected in UK law.
The WA and future framework do not have to be approved in the same vote .
Both can be voted on at different times . As long as both pass that counts as ratification . There’s no danger in just approving the WA first.
Because you can still vote against the future framework later.
I'm not so sure you can split them.
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(b) 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.
It doesn’t say at the same time . The EU only want the WA voted through by tomorrow .
They want a stable majority to ensure the legislation can get passed which that wouldn't provide. If there is to be a No Deal exit, they want it to be sooner rather than later.
The WA and future framework do not have to be approved in the same vote .
Both can be voted on at different times . As long as both pass that counts as ratification . There’s no danger in just approving the WA first.
Because you can still vote against the future framework later.
I'm not so sure you can split them.
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(b) 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.
The natural reading of that would be *both* the WA and the PD have been approved. Not that it is a single resolution. No court would throw it out on that sort of legal parsing
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?
Given a majority of Tory voters prefer No Deal to Remain under a third of MPs voting for No Deal and No extension makes Tory MPs more pro Remain than Tory voters
What's that got to do with anything? This wasn't a vote about whether the extension should take place, it was about ensuring that the short extension which is already irrevocable is correctly reflected in UK law.
Which still required changing the March 29th Brexit date, it was a clear vote against any future extensions of Article 50
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 ).
And it is a measure of how far our politics has fallen that the idea of MPs holding fast to fundamental principles is seen as so outlandish. Surely this is (or should be) what motivates people to go into politics in the first place?
The WA and future framework do not have to be approved in the same vote .
Both can be voted on at different times . As long as both pass that counts as ratification . There’s no danger in just approving the WA first.
Because you can still vote against the future framework later.
I'm not so sure you can split them.
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(b) 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.
It doesn’t say at the same time . The EU only want the WA voted through by tomorrow .
The 29th March deadline got moved, and remainers don't really feel as if they have the fire to their feet right now with regards to "No deal" being a possibility, because there is a massive Commons majority against it. The fact it isn't entirely up to them and will require unanimous EU27 consent for further extension seems to be passing them by.
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 .
I find this line of argument ("MPs should just approve the withdrawal agreement, then they can argue it out about the future relationship afterwards") so bizarre. The fact that there's so little clarity about what comes at the end of the process, no binding guarantees that MPs can avoid what they see as the worst-case scenarios, is part of the problem. Why would they set off an irreversible process before they got those guarantees?
I bought a new phone the other day; I wouldn't have been impressed if I was told I had to cough up the money and tie myself into a 2-year contract first, and that we could then "argue it out" about what phone I'd actually get afterwards.
Although to be fair that uncertainty is the inevitable consequence of the EU refusing point-blank to hold substantive negotiations about the final relationship until after we've left. So there's no way round it.
Wasn't Davis' "row of the summer" about the fact that trade talks would come after we agreed on money and the Irish border? That was still supposed to happen within the A50 period, it's just that we got all hung up on the border and made no progress. Or am I misremembering?
The WA and future framework do not have to be approved in the same vote .
Both can be voted on at different times . As long as both pass that counts as ratification . There’s no danger in just approving the WA first.
Because you can still vote against the future framework later.
I'm not so sure you can split them.
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(b) 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.
It doesn’t say at the same time . The EU only want the WA voted through by tomorrow .
They want a stable majority to ensure the legislation can get passed which that wouldn't provide. If there is to be a No Deal exit, they want it to be sooner rather than later.
Tusk asked the EU Parliament to support the UK contesting the EU elections if the Commons votes for that over No Deal yesterday
The WA and future framework do not have to be approved in the same vote .
Both can be voted on at different times . As long as both pass that counts as ratification . There’s no danger in just approving the WA first.
Because you can still vote against the future framework later.
I'm not so sure you can split them.
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(b) 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.
The natural reading of that would be *both* the WA and the PD have been approved. Not that it is a single resolution. No court would throw it out on that sort of legal parsing
It is explicit that ratification depends on both though, so even if you you approve the WA in isolation, it wouldn't take No Deal or No Brexit off the table.
The WA and future framework do not have to be approved in the same vote .
Both can be voted on at different times . As long as both pass that counts as ratification . There’s no danger in just approving the WA first.
Because you can still vote against the future framework later.
I'm not so sure you can split them.
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(b) 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.
It doesn’t say at the same time . The EU only want the WA voted through by tomorrow .
They want a stable majority to ensure the legislation can get passed which that wouldn't provide. If there is to be a No Deal exit, they want it to be sooner rather than later.
Tusk asked the EU Parliament to support the UK contesting the EU elections if the Commons votes for that over No Deal yesterday
Yes, but it's a different scenario if the UK asks for a long extension.
Wasn't Davis' "row of the summer" about the fact that trade talks would come after we agreed on money and the Irish border? That was still supposed to happen within the A50 period, it's just that we got all hung up on the border and made no progress. Or am I misremembering?
You're basically right except that it wasn't getting hung up on the border which was the problem, it was that the EU refused to budge (they'd always said they wouldn't budge on this).
Wasn't Davis' "row of the summer" about the fact that trade talks would come after we agreed on money and the Irish border? That was still supposed to happen within the A50 period, it's just that we got all hung up on the border and made no progress. Or am I misremembering?
You're basically right except that it wasn't getting hung up on the border which was the problem, it was that the EU refused to budge (they'd always said they wouldn't budge on this).
Yes, what we should have done in hindsight was just accept immediately that there's be an unlimited backstop and move on.
Also in foresight. I have no idea why so many people thought the EU would budge on this.
Wasn't Davis' "row of the summer" about the fact that trade talks would come after we agreed on money and the Irish border? That was still supposed to happen within the A50 period, it's just that we got all hung up on the border and made no progress. Or am I misremembering?
You're basically right except that it wasn't getting hung up on the border which was the problem, it was that the EU refused to budge (they'd always said they wouldn't budge on this).
Is there some special signal they should have given to indicate that they weren't bluffing?
How's the man crush on Johnny Mercer? Has he broken your heart?
I never liked him in the first place.
It is fake news to say I had a man crush on Johnny Mercer.
Should have remembered Tory MPs with the surname Mercer are 🔔 ends.
Cf the disgraced Patrick Mercer.
[Sunil whistles innocently]
TheScreamingEagles Posts: 73,455 November 2017 edited November 2017
I've always said Johnny Mercer is awesome, more proof.
Theresa May is jeopardising the 'integrity and credibility' of our party, senior MP says in blistering attack.
Johnny Mercer has been to war and can recognise chaos when he sees it. The Conservative MP, tipped as a future leader, believes a state of ‘anarchy’ is in danger of engulfing his party.
In an interview with the Telegraph today, the former Army captain, who served with distinction in Afghanistan, fires a warning shot in Theresa May’s direction that she needs to urgently get a grip on a ‘depressing’ series of events. If she doesn’t, he says, the nation will be wrecked by the “existential threat’ posed by the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street and John McDonnell living next door.
Mr Mercer’s comments will fuel the crisis overwhelming Mrs May. The disastrous election, the resignation within a week of two Cabinet ministers and the ongoing Westminster sex scandal has led Mr Mercer to conclude that Mrs May’s premiership has reached a ‘critical point’.
Wasn't Davis' "row of the summer" about the fact that trade talks would come after we agreed on money and the Irish border? That was still supposed to happen within the A50 period, it's just that we got all hung up on the border and made no progress. Or am I misremembering?
You're basically right except that it wasn't getting hung up on the border which was the problem, it was that the EU refused to budge (they'd always said they wouldn't budge on this).
Is there some special signal they should have given to indicate that they weren't bluffing?
They shouldn't have had that position in the first place. It makes zero sense and has been a significant factor in bringing us, and therefore them, into the chaotic and dangerous territory we find ourselves in.
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 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?
History will surely be kinder to TMay I reckon when the sheer impossibility of the people she had to deal with and the numbers of them in her own party (hence the failed election to dilute them). Making an enemy of the near-immaculate Chancellor was perhaps less wise.
I don't agree. TM steered the brexit process into a cul-de-sac and has refused to use either the brakes or reverse gear. Looking back in 10 years time, she'll be considered as the wrong leader for brexit, and that she made some decisions which lead to this current constitutional crisis.
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 .
I find this line of argument ("MPs should just approve the withdrawal agreement, then they can argue it out about the future relationship afterwards") so bizarre. The fact that there's so little clarity about what comes at the end of the process, no binding guarantees that MPs can avoid what they see as the worst-case scenarios, is part of the problem. Why would they set off an irreversible process before they got those guarantees?
I bought a new phone the other day; I wouldn't have been impressed if I was told I had to cough up the money and tie myself into a 2-year contract first, and that we could then "argue it out" about what phone I'd actually get afterwards.
Because the process isn’t irreversible . They can still vote against the future framework which then stops ratification .
Well, I guess that depends what's meant by "voting for the Withdrawal Agreement". If it meant putting the specific elements of the WDA on the UK statute book (the divorce bill/backstop/EU citizens' rights) ready to be automatically activated if/when we actually left, then yeah I could see that passing. I'd probably vote for that myself if I was an MP. But I wouldn't be dumb enough to actually *effect* leaving the EU until I had some guarantees about what the end result would be - so we'd still be looking at a long Article 50 extension to negotiate the future relationship.
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 ).
And it is a measure of how far our politics has fallen that the idea of MPs holding fast to fundamental principles is seen as so outlandish. Surely this is (or should be) what motivates people to go into politics in the first place?
I feel like a lot of politicians and politicos- especially Mayites at the moment, but certainly not only them- are like Kim Stanley Robinson's Frank Chalmers. So obsessed with the grubby process of politics- the negotiation, the bluffing, the compromise, the triangulation, the secrecy, the misdirection, and so on- that they lose sight of the big picture. They know the means, but not the end.
And they end up in this strange mindset where the people who should be most predictable, the people who have simple core principles which they state openly and stick to unerringly, are the ones they misjudge most often.
It is explicit that ratification depends on both though, so even if you you approve the WA in isolation, it wouldn't take No Deal or No Brexit off the table.
Yep.
Still, would be progress of a sort, and the opposition for a PD vote would be quite a different subset.
Wasn't Davis' "row of the summer" about the fact that trade talks would come after we agreed on money and the Irish border? That was still supposed to happen within the A50 period, it's just that we got all hung up on the border and made no progress. Or am I misremembering?
You're basically right except that it wasn't getting hung up on the border which was the problem, it was that the EU refused to budge (they'd always said they wouldn't budge on this).
Is there some special signal they should have given to indicate that they weren't bluffing?
They shouldn't have had that position in the first place. It makes zero sense and has been a significant factor in bringing us, and therefore them, into the chaotic and dangerous territory we find ourselves in.
No it makes perfect sense. As we have seen with the passion around the backstop, there needs to be defined terms under which negotiations are conducted. Otherwise both sides are in limbo and could be tempted to act in bad faith.
Cabinet don't know what tomorrow's vote will be on. But they have until 5pm.
Vote to approval the withdrawal agreement only and assent to a political declaration recommending to the Queen that Arlene Foster and Diane Dodds be made Dames of the British Empire and Nigel Dodds and Sammy Wilson be knighted?
Cabinet don't know what tomorrow's vote will be on. But they have until 5pm.
They don't? I'm amazed. Having failed to win over the ERG. Having failed to win over the DUP. Having failed this morning to persuade the Speaker that voting on some/all of this is definitely substantially different to last time we voted on all of this. After all that - they don't know what they are proposing?
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
People got on the plane hoping to go to Dusseldorf only to find out they landed in Edinburgh and you are making them take their holiday there instead.
having been to both Edinburgh is preferable by a country mile
LOL with no disrespect to Edinburgh but what to do with the Rough Guide to Dusseldorf and the lederhosen bought for the beer festival there? I don't think they allow lederhosen in The New Club, do they?
Cabinet don't know what tomorrow's vote will be on. But they have until 5pm.
They don't? I'm amazed. Having failed to win over the ERG. Having failed to win over the DUP. Having failed this morning to persuade the Speaker that voting on some/all of this is definitely substantially different to last time we voted on all of this. After all that - they don't know what they are proposing?
Shocked, I am, shocked.
And yes Mr Topping. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
Jenkin on BBC PL was adamant he would vote down the deal, again, but for someone who is usually extremely vocal and aggressive seemed to me remarkably subdued, almost downcast.
Wasn't Davis' "row of the summer" about the fact that trade talks would come after we agreed on money and the Irish border? That was still supposed to happen within the A50 period, it's just that we got all hung up on the border and made no progress. Or am I misremembering?
You're basically right except that it wasn't getting hung up on the border which was the problem, it was that the EU refused to budge (they'd always said they wouldn't budge on this).
Is there some special signal they should have given to indicate that they weren't bluffing?
They shouldn't have had that position in the first place. It makes zero sense and has been a significant factor in bringing us, and therefore them, into the chaotic and dangerous territory we find ourselves in.
If somebody never folds, they're a bad poker player. If I fail to notice that and I keep bluffing against them, I'm a bad poker player.
Cabinet don't know what tomorrow's vote will be on. But they have until 5pm.
They don't? I'm amazed. Having failed to win over the ERG. Having failed to win over the DUP. Having failed this morning to persuade the Speaker that voting on some/all of this is definitely substantially different to last time we voted on all of this. After all that - they don't know what they are proposing?
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.
Nothing settles matters for all time. I know you are old and so got the chance to vote in the 1975 referendum but no one under the age of 62 had that luxury.
Besides I have always said that once we enact the first referendum people can start campaigning for another one. It is only you EU fanatics who think democracy is a dirty word.
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
We'll miss it when it's gone.
We'll have nothing to talk about, other than the Tory leadership, the local elections, Euro elections, when Corbyn stands down, and possibly another General Election. A batch of by-elections. And of course most important of all who will be the next LibDem leader.
Wasn't it an Irish Nationalist beimng missing that caused the problem?
Frank Maguire came to Parliament to "abstain in person"!
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.
Broughton wanted to vote - and would have been able to as long as the ambulance carrying him was in the grounds of the Palace of Westminster. Callaghan thought this was wrong - and said no. As you say Broughton died a few days later anyway. Had he voted the no confidence motion would not have been lost.
One wonders if Broughton might have enjoyed that last trip out of hospital and made a bit of history?
Most of Mr Broughton's former constituency is now represented by Andrea Jenkyns.
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?
Given a majority of Tory voters prefer No Deal to Remain under a third of MPs voting for No Deal and No extension makes Tory MPs more pro Remain than Tory voters
ROFL LMAO etc.
Tory members are more insane than their MPs. Who knew?
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.
Nothing settles matters for all time. I know you are old and so got the chance to vote in the 1975 referendum but no one under the age of 62 had that luxury.
Besides I have always said that once we enact the first referendum people can start campaigning for another one. It is only you EU fanatics who think democracy is a dirty word.
You fail to recognise that different people have different definitions of what constitutes enacting the 2016 referendum, therefore your attitude legitimises autocracy. The only defensible position for a democrat is that people can oppose anything at any time, even if it is 'the will of the people'.
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
The will of (some of) the people.
The will of most people who *could/did* express an opinion.
That's how democracy works in a binary referendum.
I could have drawn you a bar chart showing people who voted Remain vs those who didn't It would look similar - expect your Remain column would be smaller than my Leave column.
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
People got on the plane hoping to go to Dusseldorf only to find out they landed in Edinburgh and you are making them take their holiday there instead.
having been to both Edinburgh is preferable by a country mile
LOL with no disrespect to Edinburgh but what to do with the Rough Guide to Dusseldorf and the lederhosen bought for the beer festival there? I don't think they allow lederhosen in The New Club, do they?
You'd also look a complete dick wearing Lederhosen in a club in Düsseldorf. A Carnival costume is a different matter.
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
The will of (some of) the people.
The will of most people who *could/did* express an opinion.
That's how democracy works in a binary referendum.
I could have drawn you a bar chart showing people who voted Remain vs those who didn't It would look similar - expect your Remain column would be smaller than my Leave column.
And it would look even more dramatic in the 2005 and 2015 general elections.
I take the old fashioned view - if you don't vote you don't count.
Bar those too ill to vote those who don't vote who can do have no reason to complain about the result.
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 ).
And it is a measure of how far our politics has fallen that the idea of MPs holding fast to fundamental principles is seen as so outlandish. Surely this is (or should be) what motivates people to go into politics in the first place?
I feel like a lot of politicians and politicos- especially Mayites at the moment, but certainly not only them- are like Kim Stanley Robinson's Frank Chalmers. So obsessed with the grubby process of politics- the negotiation, the bluffing, the compromise, the triangulation, the secrecy, the misdirection, and so on- that they lose sight of the big picture. They know the means, but not the end.
And they end up in this strange mindset where the people who should be most predictable, the people who have simple core principles which they state openly and stick to unerringly, are the ones they misjudge most often.
Wasn't Davis' "row of the summer" about the fact that trade talks would come after we agreed on money and the Irish border? That was still supposed to happen within the A50 period, it's just that we got all hung up on the border and made no progress. Or am I misremembering?
You're basically right except that it wasn't getting hung up on the border which was the problem, it was that the EU refused to budge (they'd always said they wouldn't budge on this).
Yes, what we should have done in hindsight was just accept immediately that there's be an unlimited backstop and move on.
Also in foresight. I have no idea why so many people thought the EU would budge on this.
Because they have budged already? As No Deal hurtles towards us, suddenly the EU has realised there might not need to be a Hard Border across Ireland, after all...
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
The will of (some of) the people.
Yes, but:
Voted Remain would make a smaller "bar" than Voted Leave Did not vote Remain would make a larger "bar" than Did not Vote Leave
Both points are of course true Sunil. But my serious point is that if you want to make a mjaor constitutional change to the country it would probably be wise to set some sort of bar that requires either a 2/3rds - 1/3rd majority or a majority of registered voters voting for the change.
As a secondary point, were we to end up revoking we hear a lot of talk on here about 'people on the streets', 'riots' etc. and that may happen. But it's worth remembering that 29m voters did not feel strongly anti-EU enough to vote Leave.
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
People got on the plane hoping to go to Dusseldorf only to find out they landed in Edinburgh and you are making them take their holiday there instead.
having been to both Edinburgh is preferable by a country mile
LOL with no disrespect to Edinburgh but what to do with the Rough Guide to Dusseldorf and the lederhosen bought for the beer festival there? I don't think they allow lederhosen in The New Club, do they?
You'd also look a complete dick wearing Lederhosen in a club in Düsseldorf. A Carnival costume is a different matter.
Where would you not look a complete dick wearing Lederhosen?
How's the man crush on Johnny Mercer? Has he broken your heart?
I never liked him in the first place.
It is fake news to say I had a man crush on Johnny Mercer.
Should have remembered Tory MPs with the surname Mercer are 🔔 ends.
Cf the disgraced Patrick Mercer.
[Sunil whistles innocently]
TheScreamingEagles Posts: 73,455 November 2017 edited November 2017
I've always said Johnny Mercer is awesome, more proof.
Theresa May is jeopardising the 'integrity and credibility' of our party, senior MP says in blistering attack.
Johnny Mercer has been to war and can recognise chaos when he sees it. The Conservative MP, tipped as a future leader, believes a state of ‘anarchy’ is in danger of engulfing his party.
In an interview with the Telegraph today, the former Army captain, who served with distinction in Afghanistan, fires a warning shot in Theresa May’s direction that she needs to urgently get a grip on a ‘depressing’ series of events. If she doesn’t, he says, the nation will be wrecked by the “existential threat’ posed by the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street and John McDonnell living next door.
Mr Mercer’s comments will fuel the crisis overwhelming Mrs May. The disastrous election, the resignation within a week of two Cabinet ministers and the ongoing Westminster sex scandal has led Mr Mercer to conclude that Mrs May’s premiership has reached a ‘critical point’.
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
The will of (some of) the people.
The will of most people who *could/did* express an opinion.
That's how democracy works in a binary referendum.
I could have drawn you a bar chart showing people who voted Remain vs those who didn't It would look similar - expect your Remain column would be smaller than my Leave column.
I believe you said: "...most of us did ask to come..."
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.
Nothing settles matters for all time. I know you are old and so got the chance to vote in the 1975 referendum but no one under the age of 62 had that luxury.
Besides I have always said that once we enact the first referendum people can start campaigning for another one. It is only you EU fanatics who think democracy is a dirty word.
My parents got to vote in the 1975 referendum - they voted on whether we should stay a member of a body (as named on the ballot) paper that was abolished in 1993 and completely ceased to exist legally in 2009.
Until 2016 we had never had a referendum on membership of the European Union.
And while you can argue voting every 41 years is 'once in a generation' - voting 3 years later is not!
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?
Given a majority of Tory voters prefer No Deal to Remain under a third of MPs voting for No Deal and No extension makes Tory MPs more pro Remain than Tory voters
What's that got to do with anything? This wasn't a vote about whether the extension should take place, it was about ensuring that the short extension which is already irrevocable is correctly reflected in UK law.
Which still required changing the March 29th Brexit date, it was a clear vote against any future extensions of Article 50
The 93 excludes MPs I thought were barking mad such as Owen Paterson, Daniel Kawczynski and Bill Wiggin. 93 MPs are more barking. Bloody hell.
I think the rural farming vote might have swayed these three MPs. There probably aren't many farming votes in crashing off a cliff.
The organic farmer Guy Watson of Riverford said on R4 months ago that no deal would make his company insolvent within a few weeks. March to May is the time of maximum vegetable imports.
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
People got on the plane hoping to go to Dusseldorf only to find out they landed in Edinburgh and you are making them take their holiday there instead.
There is way too much hyperbole about unintended destinations and chaotic consequences.
I think the PM's deal and red lines were exactly what I was expecting when I voted. We were told clearly and repeatedly by both sides during the campaign that:
a) This was a once in a generation decision that would be implemented (ie no best of three votes). b) A vote to Leave meant leaving:
The political institutions The Single Market The Customs Union
The current chaos has nothing to do with the proposed Brexit not being what people voted for.
The current procedural chaos is due to:
a) people choosing willfully to forget how clear the Leave prospectus was in terms of what we would leave and seeking to engineer a completely different outcome.
b) The mistake of including the backstop - although another fallback in the event of no FTA that keeps open borders but with WTO rules is hard to conceive.
c) narrow party political posturing and ERGonaut fundamentalism
I am a pretty moderate one-nation Conservative. I'm not a headbanger. We just need to get on with what was indicated during the campaign.
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
People got on the plane hoping to go to Dusseldorf only to find out they landed in Edinburgh and you are making them take their holiday there instead.
having been to both Edinburgh is preferable by a country mile
LOL with no disrespect to Edinburgh but what to do with the Rough Guide to Dusseldorf and the lederhosen bought for the beer festival there? I don't think they allow lederhosen in The New Club, do they?
You'd also look a complete dick wearing Lederhosen in a club in Düsseldorf. A Carnival costume is a different matter.
Where would you not look a complete dick wearing Lederhosen?
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
The will of (some of) the people.
Yes, but:
Voted Remain would make a smaller "bar" than Voted Leave Did not vote Remain would make a larger "bar" than Did not Vote Leave
It's an absurd position to hold that to include the non voters, when in fact this election had the biggest turnout for twenty five years.
But it makes it easier to do something that most democrats would not have a few years ago believe they would ever do.
You're first mistake is it wasn't an election; it was a vote to leave the EU. 29m who could have voted to leave didn't.
It was also subject to fraud which would have been sufficient to nullify a general election. Why the ref. wasn't nullified is an interesting question.
Heath got it right, i.e. referendums have virtually no place in a representative democracy which is what ours is.
A C Grayling has had some useful suggestions for improving our parliamentary democracy, lecture on Y.tube.
Electoral fraud is a serious matter. Which electoral fraud was that? And what examples do you have of a general election been nullified by such electoral fraud?
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
People got on the plane hoping to go to Dusseldorf only to find out they landed in Edinburgh and you are making them take their holiday there instead.
There is way too much hyperbole about unintended destinations and chaotic consequences.
I think the PM's deal and red lines were exactly what I was expecting when I voted. We were told clearly and repeatedly by both sides during the campaign that:
a) This was a once in a generation decision that would be implemented (ie no best of three votes). b) A vote to Leave meant leaving:
The political institutions The Single Market The Customs Union
The current chaos has nothing to do with the proposed Brexit not being what people voted for.
The current procedural chaos is due to:
a) people choosing willfully to forget how clear the Leave prospectus was in terms of what we would leave and seeking to engineer a completely different outcome.
b) The mistake of including the backstop - although another fallback in the event of no FTA that keeps open borders but with WTO rules is hard to conceive.
c) narrow party political posturing and ERGonaut fundamentalism
I am a pretty moderate one-nation Conservative. I'm not a headbanger. We just need to get on with what was indicated during the campaign.
That ship has sailed.
The fact you can describe yourself as a moderate with a straight face speaks volumes about the state of the Tory party nowadays.
Brexit. Are we nearly there yet? I want a wee wee.
It's your fault sunshine. Hold it 'til we get there.
Indeed. Most of us never asked to come on this trip at all.
Um... actually most of us did ask to come on the trip. Well, most of those who could/did express an opinion.
The will of (some of) the people.
Yes, but:
Voted Remain would make a smaller "bar" than Voted Leave Did not vote Remain would make a larger "bar" than Did not Vote Leave
Both points are of course true Sunil. But my serious point is that if you want to make a mjaor constitutional change to the country it would probably be wise to set some sort of bar that requires either a 2/3rds - 1/3rd majority or a majority of registered voters voting for the change.
As a secondary point, were we to end up revoking we hear a lot of talk on here about 'people on the streets', 'riots' etc. and that may happen. But it's worth remembering that 29m voters did not feel strongly anti-EU enough to vote Leave.
You mean set the bar so high you make he whole thing pointless?
Comments
Let's not forget the Tories once opposed the establishment of the NHS party on the basis that they did not know what they were voting for.
A lot are just signalling, knowing the vote wasn't in doubt.
Of course, plenty are nutters.
I bought a new phone the other day; I wouldn't have been impressed if I was told I had to cough up the money and tie myself into a 2-year contract first, and that we could then "argue it out" about what phone I'd actually get afterwards.
Both can be voted on at different times . As long as both pass that counts as ratification . There’s no danger in just approving the WA first.
Because you can still vote against the future framework later.
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(b) 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.
However, thinking that through is a little complex, so from a political standpoint it'd probably be effective to embarrass them by pointing out that they claim they only want changes to the PD but are actually voting down the WA. That might have worked as a tactic a couple months ago (not necessarily to win votes, but as a weapon to use against Labour in general), though I now think it's gotten too late.
DUP & Hardcore ERG - Actually properly oppose it including the backstop
Labour - "Blind Brexit"
SNP - "Won't pass a 'devastating' Tory Brexit, unless 'ratified' by the people"
TIG - "Won't pass Brexit unless 'ratified' by the people"
It is fake news to say I had a man crush on Johnny Mercer.
Should have remembered Tory MPs with the surname Mercer are 🔔 ends.
Cf the disgraced Patrick Mercer.
Shortly after vote on amendments, 13 MEPs asked for vote to be recorded differently
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/mar/27/mep-errors-mean-european-copyright-law-may-not-have-passed
Apparently the vote order was changed at the very last minute and a number of MEP didn't see it.
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/1111237551715766272
Also in foresight. I have no idea why so many people thought the EU would budge on this.
TheScreamingEagles Posts: 73,455
November 2017 edited November 2017
I've always said Johnny Mercer is awesome, more proof.
Theresa May is jeopardising the 'integrity and credibility' of our party, senior MP says in blistering attack.
Johnny Mercer has been to war and can recognise chaos when he sees it. The Conservative MP, tipped as a future leader, believes a state of ‘anarchy’ is in danger of engulfing his party.
In an interview with the Telegraph today, the former Army captain, who served with distinction in Afghanistan, fires a warning shot in Theresa May’s direction that she needs to urgently get a grip on a ‘depressing’ series of events. If she doesn’t, he says, the nation will be wrecked by the “existential threat’ posed by the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street and John McDonnell living next door.
Mr Mercer’s comments will fuel the crisis overwhelming Mrs May. The disastrous election, the resignation within a week of two Cabinet ministers and the ongoing Westminster sex scandal has led Mr Mercer to conclude that Mrs May’s premiership has reached a ‘critical point’.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/12/theresa-may-jeopardising-integrity-credibility-party-senior/
http://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/post/quote/5651/Comment_1770563
And they end up in this strange mindset where the people who should be most predictable, the people who have simple core principles which they state openly and stick to unerringly, are the ones they misjudge most often.
Still, would be progress of a sort, and the opposition for a PD vote would be quite a different subset.
Shocked, I am, shocked.
And yes Mr Topping. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
The will of (some of) the people.
Besides I have always said that once we enact the first referendum people can start campaigning for another one. It is only you EU fanatics who think democracy is a dirty word.
We'll have nothing to talk about, other than the Tory leadership, the local elections, Euro elections, when Corbyn stands down, and possibly another General Election. A batch of by-elections. And of course most important of all who will be the next LibDem leader.
It's going to be really quiet on here.
One wonders if Broughton might have enjoyed that last trip out of hospital and made a bit of history?
Most of Mr Broughton's former constituency is now represented by Andrea Jenkyns.
Tory members are more insane than their MPs. Who knew?
That's how democracy works in a binary referendum.
I could have drawn you a bar chart showing people who voted Remain vs those who didn't It would look similar - expect your Remain column would be smaller than my Leave column.
Voted Remain would make a smaller "bar" than Voted Leave
Did not vote Remain would make a larger "bar" than Did not Vote Leave
I take the old fashioned view - if you don't vote you don't count.
Bar those too ill to vote those who don't vote who can do have no reason to complain about the result.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/27/signs-eu-preparing-prevent-hard-border-cutting-ireland-adrift/
But it makes it easier to do something that most democrats would not have a few years ago believe they would ever do.
As a secondary point, were we to end up revoking we hear a lot of talk on here about 'people on the streets', 'riots' etc. and that may happen. But it's worth remembering that 29m voters did not feel strongly anti-EU enough to vote Leave.
Until 2016 we had never had a referendum on membership of the European Union.
And while you can argue voting every 41 years is 'once in a generation' - voting 3 years later is not!
I think the rural farming vote might have swayed these three MPs. There probably aren't many farming votes in crashing off a cliff.
The organic farmer Guy Watson of Riverford said on R4 months ago that no deal would make his company insolvent within a few weeks. March to May is the time of maximum vegetable imports.
I think the PM's deal and red lines were exactly what I was expecting when I voted. We were told clearly and repeatedly by both sides during the campaign that:
a) This was a once in a generation decision that would be implemented (ie no best of three votes).
b) A vote to Leave meant leaving:
The political institutions
The Single Market
The Customs Union
The current chaos has nothing to do with the proposed Brexit not being what people voted for.
The current procedural chaos is due to:
a) people choosing willfully to forget how clear the Leave prospectus was in terms of what we would leave and seeking to engineer a completely different outcome.
b) The mistake of including the backstop - although another fallback in the event of no FTA that keeps open borders but with WTO rules is hard to conceive.
c) narrow party political posturing and ERGonaut fundamentalism
I am a pretty moderate one-nation Conservative. I'm not a headbanger. We just need to get on with what was indicated during the campaign.
OLD
when all PB'ers sign up to May's DealMeaningless thread!
Rochdale Pioneers
I still don't think my lot understand what has happened to them...
Meeks :
I'm going to ration my use of "I told you so" in the coming months and years. But not very tightly.
Heath got it right, i.e. referendums have virtually no place in a representative democracy which is what ours is.
A C Grayling has had some useful suggestions for improving our parliamentary democracy, lecture on Y.tube.
The fact you can describe yourself as a moderate with a straight face speaks volumes about the state of the Tory party nowadays.