It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
Do you have to dissolve parliament the moment an election is called? Could you not schedule an election for, say, June and say that parliament will be disolved in two weeks, etc
Yes. There's always a bit gap between an election being called and parliament being dissolved.
"Going" apoplectic? He's been in a state of crazed and drooling fury since the vote. What makes it even more delicious is that he used to be a raging eurosceptic. True story.
"Truly terrible to try and separate withdrawal agreement from political declaration" is not my definition of going apoplectic.
He doesn't think it's a good idea, clearly, but where are the mentions of 'traitors', 'lynchings', 'slave state', 'end of the world' etc. etc?
Why? The smaller their constituencies the more they can actually represent them. Nobody can represent the conflicting interests of 100,000 people. Maybe they can 50k, or 10k. I know, more spongers on the teat of the tax payer. But what should be the price of democracy?
Other option is just massively devolve authority on many issues, so it's dealt with at that level. But central government hates giving out power. So one or the other.
Why is anyone a member of a political party? What do they get for it? The parties have pretty much abandoned any pretense of allowing the membership to determine policy. Their job is to clap at truly boring conferences. Given this who the leader is and what direction they want to take the party in is even more important. If input in that decision was taken away from the Membership then participation in our political parties would fall from its current derisory levels with adverse consequences for our democracy.
And, frankly, the idea of leaving anything important to the bunch of incompetents who managed to vote down all 8 options yesterday is a bit of a joke. They are simply not capable of making decisions on anything bigger than their monthly expense claims.
One of the problems of political discourse was that open disagreement came to be viewed not as a strength but as a weakness. I was at Eastbourne in 1986 when the Liberal Party discussed the defence plan. We had heard from David Owen the day before but on the Tuesday afternoon I was witness to a full-blown political argument. There were tremendous speeches on both sides In the end, the Steel leadership lost as the anti-nuclear amendment carried but the political damage was that but it allowed the Conservative and Labour parties to create the notion the parties weren't united and therefore unsuitable to govern.
In the 1990s a divided Conservative Party and Government were systematically destroyed first at local and then at national level by a seemingly united Labour Party under Blair. Labour wasn't united at all but the Left were able to keep quiet and preserve the illusion of unity allowing Blair to sweep the 1997 GE.
If you want to look strong and united as a Party, the one thing you can't have is disagreement and division so Conferences are now rallies. The Conference managers ensure anything even remotely divisive isn't debated or pushed to the fringe. I agree that's bad but you would need a change in political culture to ensure competing and adversarial parties don't try to maximise their strengths and their opponent's weakness.
Split parties sink. That's the conventional wisdom but it puts the cart before the horse imo. Rather, it's that sinking parties split. As parties sink in the polls, members look around for scapegoats.
The Conservative Party has been openly split on Brexit for over two years. Not just fringe groups like the ERG but the Cabinet is in disarray. And yet the polls show the two main parties neck and neck, with the united LibDems not troubling the scorer. The conventional wisdom is wrong.
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
Why is anyone a member of a political party? What do they get for it? The parties have pretty much abandoned any pretense of allowing the membership to determine policy. Their job is to clap at truly boring conferences. Given this who the leader is and what direction they want to take the party in is even more important. If input in that decision was taken away from the Membership then participation in our political parties would fall from its current derisory levels with adverse consequences for our democracy.
And, frankly, the idea of leaving anything important to the bunch of incompetents who managed to vote down all 8 options yesterday is a bit of a joke. They are simply not capable of making decisions on anything bigger than their monthly expense claims.
One of the problems of political discourse was that open disagreement came to be viewed not as a strength but as a weakness. I was at Eastbourne in 1986 when the Liberal Party discussed the defence plan. We had heard from David Owen the day before but on the Tuesday afternoon I was witness to a full-blown political argument. There were tremendous speeches on both sides In the end, the Steel leadership lost as the anti-nuclear amendment carried but the political damage was that but it allowed the Conservative and Labour parties to create the notion the parties weren't united and therefore unsuitable to govern.
In the 1990s a divided Conservative Party and Government were systematically destroyed first at local and then at national level by a seemingly united Labour Party under Blair. Labour wasn't united at all but the Left were able to keep quiet and preserve the illusion of unity allowing Blair to sweep the 1997 GE.
If you want to look strong and united as a Party, the one thing you can't have is disagreement and division so Conferences are now rallies. The Conference managers ensure anything even remotely divisive isn't debated or pushed to the fringe. I agree that's bad but you would need a change in political culture to ensure competing and adversarial parties don't try to maximise their strengths and their opponent's weakness.
I think political parties just need to be a bit more robust about the need for debate. I mean, its not like the current system is working is it?
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
This ploy looks to cut off the chance of a further extension .
Vote the WA and after April 12 it’s too late to organize EU elections . So saying to the ERG get it through and the UK is definitely out by May 22 . Of course they could then derail the WAIB and force no deal unless the nuclear option of revoke happens .
In terms of EU elections there’s nothing in the ECJ decision to stop revocation past April 12 . The EU can’t stop that as long as that happens before the expiry of the May 22 extension.
And if the WA comes back tomorrow , then amendments could be put down so that could cause the government more problems .
But the whole argument before was vote it through and be out by March 29th (tomorrow). Why would they relent now? Their aim is to stall everything and achieve crash out no deal.
The even more extreme ERG want to make it no deal or revocation because they’ve hedged their bets that MPs will be too frightened to vote for the latter . Some of the other ERG are more worried about no Brexit .
The ERG are all nuts but on a sliding scale from crazy to utterly unhinged like the odious Francois .
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
If in the mean time they've implemented a off-border customs solution for the border, as per their current plans, how will they be able to then argue that a customer union is strictly required?
"Going" apoplectic? He's been in a state of crazed and drooling fury since the vote. What makes it even more delicious is that he used to be a raging eurosceptic. True story.
"Truly terrible to try and separate withdrawal agreement from political declaration" is not my definition of going apoplectic.
He doesn't think it's a good idea, clearly, but where are the mentions of 'traitors', 'lynchings', 'slave state', 'end of the world' etc. etc?
Read all his tweets especially the final one!
Yeah, the others are a bit off the wall - but I've seen worse most evenings from Sean_T.
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
This is like the leader of the New Zealand mosque who said the monstrous attack was staged by Mossad. They just can't help it. The Anti-Semitism is now in the DNA and might never be disentangled. It is tragic.
Why? The smaller their constituencies the more they can actually represent them. Nobody can represent the conflicting interests of 100,000 people. Maybe they can 50k, or 10k. I know, more spongers on the teat of the tax payer. But what should be the price of democracy?
Other option is just massively devolve authority on many issues, so it's dealt with at that level. But central government hates giving out power. So one or the other.
There is also the point that mounting an effective campaign over such a big patch is a serious and expensive enterprise that inevitably favours the bigger better organised parties and presents considerable barriers to entry for any independent.
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
MPs have 75% of the vote and members 25% of the vote.
The trouble with those sort of mixed systems - or even the Tory system - is that they make it obvious when the leader isn't the first choice of the MPs. Which is a very invidious position to be in.
Why is anyone a member of a political party? What do they get for it? The parties have pretty much abandoned any pretense of allowing the membership to determine policy. Their job is to clap at truly boring conferences. Given this who the leader is and what direction they want to take the party in is even more important. If input in that decision was taken away from the Membership then participation in our political parties would fall from its current derisory levels with adverse consequences for our democracy.
In the 1990s a divided Conservative Party and Government were systematically destroyed first at local and then at national level by a seemingly united Labour Party under Blair. Labour wasn't united at all but the Left were able to keep quiet and preserve the illusion of unity allowing Blair to sweep the 1997 GE.
If you want to look strong and united as a Party, the one thing you can't have is disagreement and division so Conferences are now rallies. The Conference managers ensure anything even remotely divisive isn't debated or pushed to the fringe. I agree that's bad but you would need a change in political culture to ensure competing and adversarial parties don't try to maximise their strengths and their opponent's weakness.
Do you think society overall has changed in a similar way? It seems to me that no one ever admits to making a mistake, or to being vulnerable. 50 years ago singers sang songs about being broken hearted and missing/wanting someone back, nowadays its always F*** you I didn't care anyway. Or so it seems to me.
When John Inverdale insulted Marion Bartoli he says he went into BBC PR training mode, carry on, hope no one notices, dont fess up.
"Inverdale said that his gut instinct was to hope that no one had heard. "It was drummed into us over and again. Never explain, never apologise, because if you do you'll dig an even bigger hole. So I thought: 'I'll just keep going and hope nobody heard it,'" he said."
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
MPs have 75% of the vote and members 25% of the vote.
MPs already get the right to narrow the choice for members down to two - sadly spurned in May’s case. Giving MPs 75% of electoral college votes on top makes membership meaningless.
The people of Britain will never knowingly consent to be governed by those who do not speak their language, live in their country or depend upon their votes. The power of self-government, the right to hire and fire our rulers and the capacity to chart our own destiny are inalienable birthrights. They should not be traded in for a mess of pottage otherwise known as a back row seat at a show called "The Heart of Europe". Our destiny is surely as a self-governing nation which trades freely with the world. The future is bright; the future is global. Our success in it is dependent upon the vision, self confidence and calibre of our leaders, our businesses and our workforce.
I seem to have forgotten to attribute this..
John Bercow MP, lecture to the Bruges Group
I think Mr Bercow would struggle to find a member of the European Parliament who didn't speak English better than the MP for Sheffield Hallam.
And where will TM get the additional votes when the DUP vote against and Labour don't come over for fear of a hard right Tory PM?
And the DUP would then VONC the government.
It's a clarifying move that is both logical and makes political sense.
We can only leave the EU by passing the WA, and the PD is meaningless since TM is going and her replacement is unknown, therefore putting simply the WA up for a vote is essentially saying to Parliament, "Are you going to block Brexit?"
If it goes down (quite likely) then a clear narrative is established to blame Labour and Remainer MPs. Because their excuse, that they disagree with the proposed Future Relationship, is taken away. Labour's Brexit? Needs the WA. Clarke's Brexit? Needs the WA. Boles' Brexit? Needs the WA. The WA that they will be rejecting. That's a win for TM.
And then there is the chance (25% perhaps?) that sufficient Labour MPs come across to get it passed. Then she goes, new Tory leader, and a GE - which is inevitable because a fresh mandate and a new Parliament is required in order to negotiate the Future Relationship. That works for Labour too. What they want above all else is a GE.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
And members chose IDS over Ken
Only because of Europe. If Tory MPs didn’t hold their membership in complete contempt, Clarke would have won easily in my view.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
And members chose IDS over Ken
Only because of Europe. If Tory MPs didn’t hold their membership in complete contempt, Clarke would have won easily in my view.
Imagine having your own views and because others disagree, they think you hold them in contempt!
The point is that there's no way to ratify the WA by stealth through parliament. May could conceivably try to game the process to create a harder cliff edge on May 22nd, but that would unravel quickly.
I know your knowledge of the detailed legalities trumps mine, but my sense is that if both Parliament and the EU are happy for us to leave on 22/5 on the basis of the WA alone, then that is what will happen.
And if the WA does not pass, I see political benefits for TM, as per the post I wrote just below to 'Freggles'.
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
And members chose IDS over Ken
Only because of Europe. If Tory MPs didn’t hold their membership in complete contempt, Clarke would have won easily in my view.
Imagine having your own views and because others disagree, they think you hold them in contempt!
You are obviously happy to vote for those who don’t care what you think or don’t care what they put in a manifesto. That’s ok if you want others to tell you what to think I suppose.
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
First, we probably need more, not fewer, MPs. 1 person representing ~100,000 people's interests seems a bit much.
Second, we probably need more, not less, devolution. Give the other national govs more power, and give local councils more money and authority.
Third, we need more, not less, "prole" engagement with parties. People need to have a stake in politics. Civic engagement should be encouraged, not discouraged. All parties should give their members decent rights within the party structure, and each party should probably devolve more to local branches (except strategy, coz activists such at strategy).
Forth, we deffo need to change the voting system. Copy the Germans, or Canadians, or some federal, PR / AV system. It just makes so many people angry. I may hate UKIP, but they did get a large % of the vote with no representation. Also, a second fully elected house. Make it somewhat senatey?
Lastly, throw away parliamentary procedure and start again; a decent, understandable by the layman, written constitution. None of this "erskin may" business. If the man on the street can't figure out what's going on it makes it all seem like the elites are trying to pull a fast one no matter what (which of course, they are).
PS get rid of the constitutional role of the royals and the church and whatnot. Disestablishment would be great.
I think a couple of these are good ideas, but mostly disagree.
We were asked about Regional Government only about 20 years ago; we rejected it.
The countries with constitutional monarchies seem to be the ones that work well. Most of Northern Europe, and Canada - for a start.
I would encourage more engagement locally by raising more funds locally, and perhaps substantially increasing the role of the lower tiers of government. I would also genuinely be interested to understand how the likes of Germany and Canada exercise control when the nutters get control as in eg Liverpool and Militant; given Corbyn we may be seeing more of that.
Not at all sure about introducing a Year Zero to Parliament - do we really want the kind of shambles they have in Edinburgh?
Reform the Lords - probably. Regional Senators a la Australia or USA may be one idea - 2 per County, and 2 for London.
More MPs is a problem in your argument imo - "1 person representing ~100,000 people's interests seems a bit much." Of the countries you admire, Germany has 120k, Canada 100k.
And Parliament sits too much - 150 days a year, whilst most countries are more like 120 days. Cut the sitting days to about 100-110 a year (like Germany), then there will be less chance for the buggers to interfere too much.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
And they are expected to cough up at every opportunity for the privilege.
Yes, Hunt's reason for his conversion - I became disillusioned because the EU was being beastly to us - was fairly novel and would probably be believed by the people who he needed to believe it. I wonder how long it took him to think it up.
Yes, it was a good one. And I think he was the first of the big beast Remainers to say on the record that if the referendum were held again he would vote Leave.
Smart. Certainly if the next GE does turn out to be a 'Jeremy Derby' he will be the cleverer of the participating Jeremys. By a distance, TBF.
People of Sheffield Hallam, what the f*ck did you do?
I did my best to save Nick Clegg and I helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
Increased majority I reckon for Lee, he's in tune with his constituents on both europe and fracking.
Except he has an awful relationship with his constituency association.
Interesting, why is that ?
Presumably an embarrassing history ("If I were a misogynist etc.."), followed by walking away from the Labour whip in a fit of moral pique within a couple of days after he had been given it back.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
And they are expected to cough up at every opportunity for the privilege.
As far as I can see, that’s the main reason they want members; the other being they want canvassers.
Nonsense. The Tories could not go into an election under a leader who has already announced her imminent departure. And what policy on Brexit could they unite behind?
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
Why not abolish general elections altogether? Instead, elect all members for a maximum term length of of five years. Calling an election in said constituency early is entirely up to him/her. But it has to happen after five years. Benefits are more independent thinking mps, less dependent on whim or popularity of their leaders. I suspect there are disadvantages, though.
Do you think society overall has changed in a similar way? It seems to me that no one ever admits to making a mistake, or to being vulnerable. 50 years ago singers sang songs about being broken hearted and missing/wanting someone back, nowadays its always F*** you I didn't care anyway. Or so it seems to me.
I think so. You could add things like those who argue victims of rape should be called survivors, rather than victims, or the language used around battling cancer.
No weakness or vulnerability is allowed.
I would argue that this is because the neoliberal victory made collective change seem impossible, so instead people were encouraged to fix themselves. If they failed to do so that failure was theirs alone - and so the reluctance to admit to weakness.
Nonsense. The Tories could not go into an election under a leader who has already announced her imminent departure. And what policy on Brexit could they unite behind?
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
Nonsense. The Tories could not go into an election under a leader who has already announced her imminent departure. And what policy on Brexit could they unite behind?
The list of things this government could not do, and then did, is growing by the day...
Why not abolish general elections altogether? Instead, elect all members for a maximum term length of of five years. Calling an election in said constituency early is entirely up to him/her. But it has to happen after five years. Benefits are more independent thinking mps, less dependent on whim or popularity of their leaders. I suspect there are disadvantages, though.
That sounds more like the situation as it currently exists. MPs taking control - better?
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
OK then one way or another the whole of the UK needs to sign up to the backstop. Solves so many problems and is only during transition.
God give me strength.
How are they justifying the £39bn. I thought that £20-25bn was due to the transition period?
Unless they are planning to offer us transition with no deal
No idea. Because they can?
We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!
I admire their optimism that they think they could get it through Parliament.
Saying there'll be a General Election if it fails sounds almost like they're helping the Labour whips to vote it down.
Labout MPs though would face a conundrum - vote against a GE they've spent 2 years calling for?
They could vote against the deal. And then, since it would inevitably lead to no-deal Brexit, they could vote against a general election on the basis that now really was not the time (and let us take over the reins).
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
OK then one way or another the whole of the UK needs to sign up to the backstop. Solves so many problems and is only during transition.
God give me strength.
How are they justifying the £39bn. I thought that £20-25bn was due to the transition period?
Unless they are planning to offer us transition with no deal
No idea. Because they can?
We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!
A noble sentiment when the country ruled a quarter of the planet. I'm not sure I'd trust our current leadership with running a quarter of the Isle of Wight.
I admire their optimism that they think they could get it through Parliament.
Saying there'll be a General Election if it fails sounds almost like they're helping the Labour whips to vote it down.
Labout MPs though would face a conundrum - vote against a GE they've spent 2 years calling for?
They could vote against the deal. And then, since it would inevitably lead to no-deal Brexit, they could vote against a general election on the basis that now really was not the time (and let us take over the reins).
Do you think a vote against the WA means a no deal now ?
Why not abolish general elections altogether? Instead, elect all members for a maximum term length of of five years. Calling an election in said constituency early is entirely up to him/her. But it has to happen after five years. Benefits are more independent thinking mps, less dependent on whim or popularity of their leaders. I suspect there are disadvantages, though.
That sounds more like the situation as it currently exists. MPs taking control - better?
"No no no no no no no no"
Theresa May’s best option now is to abolish the concept of time
It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
OK then one way or another the whole of the UK needs to sign up to the backstop. Solves so many problems and is only during transition.
God give me strength.
How are they justifying the £39bn. I thought that £20-25bn was due to the transition period?
Unless they are planning to offer us transition with no deal
No idea. Because they can?
We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!
A noble sentiment when the country ruled a quarter of the planet. I'm not sure I'd trust our current leadership with running a quarter of the Isle of Wight.
Fair point.
But the point remains: asking us to pay for the transition period without transition is bullshit.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
If you are an anti-business, socially conservative, xenophobic, English nationalist the Conservative party is a good place to meet like-minded people.
I admire their optimism that they think they could get it through Parliament.
Saying there'll be a General Election if it fails sounds almost like they're helping the Labour whips to vote it down.
Labout MPs though would face a conundrum - vote against a GE they've spent 2 years calling for?
They could vote against the deal. And then, since it would inevitably lead to no-deal Brexit, they could vote against a general election on the basis that now really was not the time (and let us take over the reins).
Do you think a vote against the WA means a no deal now ?
No. I have reasonable hopes for the Letwin procedure.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
And members chose IDS over Ken
Only because of Europe. If Tory MPs didn’t hold their membership in complete contempt, Clarke would have won easily in my view.
Imagine having your own views and because others disagree, they think you hold them in contempt!
You are obviously happy to vote for those who don’t care what you think or don’t care what they put in a manifesto. That’s ok if you want others to tell you what to think I suppose.
Well, they don't tell you what to think, but the point of our representative "democracy" is that you can't tell them how to think, because you delegate that to them to do on your behalf. That is how it used to work. Now, it seems, complicated issues are put to the electorate as referenda with very simplistic binary questions asked of them, where there clearly isn't a simplistic binary answer. Result: chaos !
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
Do members not get the right to take part in the selection of local MP candidates?
Why not abolish general elections altogether? Instead, elect all members for a maximum term length of of five years. Calling an election in said constituency early is entirely up to him/her. But it has to happen after five years. Benefits are more independent thinking mps, less dependent on whim or popularity of their leaders. I suspect there are disadvantages, though.
That sounds more like the situation as it currently exists. MPs taking control - better?
"No no no no no no no no"
Theresa May’s best option now is to abolish the concept of time
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
If you are an anti-business, socially conservative, xenophobic, English nationalist the Conservative party is a good place to meet like-minded people.
Do we have to guess your righteous vantage point on the moral high ground?
I don't think the Tories would come well out of a "who governs?" GE. Particularly as the real question is about the internal politics of the Tory party, which our voting system doesn't allow voters to resolve.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
If you are an anti-business, socially conservative, xenophobic, English nationalist the Conservative party is a good place to meet like-minded people.
You missed out generally socially inept. Maybe you were just being kind, or more likely, unlike me, you have never been to a Conservative constituency party meeting
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
If you are an anti-business, socially conservative, xenophobic, English nationalist the Conservative party is a good place to meet like-minded people.
Do we have to guess your righteous vantage point on the moral high ground?
It's not a matter of morality, just a matter of fact.
Comments
God give me strength.
Other option is just massively devolve authority on many issues, so it's dealt with at that level. But central government hates giving out power. So one or the other.
The Conservative Party has been openly split on Brexit for over two years. Not just fringe groups like the ERG but the Cabinet is in disarray. And yet the polls show the two main parties neck and neck, with the united LibDems not troubling the scorer. The conventional wisdom is wrong.
If you're not prepared to do that, you're looking at a backstop or some kind of permanent alignment such as, er, EU membership.
Unicorns still on parade.
The ERG are all nuts but on a sliding scale from crazy to utterly unhinged like the odious Francois .
People of Sheffield Hallam, what the f*ck did you do?
Unless they are planning to offer us transition with no deal
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3015409/Lawyer-jihadi-schoolgirl-s-father-worrying-links-extremists-Solicitor-says-Muslims-shouldn-t-operate-police-Lee-Rigby-killer-created-security-services.html
MPs have 75% of the vote and members 25% of the vote.
MPs nominate (only 2 needed).
Members vote on the full list of candidates - AV basis, top 5 candidates taken through
MPs use exhaustive ballot to determine the winning candidate
That way the leader is acceptable to the membership but MPs can work with them as well
When John Inverdale insulted Marion Bartoli he says he went into BBC PR training mode, carry on, hope no one notices, dont fess up.
"Inverdale said that his gut instinct was to hope that no one had heard. "It was drummed into us over and again. Never explain, never apologise, because if you do you'll dig an even bigger hole. So I thought: 'I'll just keep going and hope nobody heard it,'" he said."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/20/john-inverdale-horror-criticising-marion-bartoli-looks
Manners, chivalry, honesty, benefit of the doubt are things of the past.
Or they might behave like the L.Dems did 2010-15. That didn't end so well for the L.Ds.
MPs already get the right to narrow the choice for members down to two - sadly spurned in May’s case. Giving MPs 75% of electoral college votes on top makes membership meaningless.
The UK political class has certainly been incompetent, but I don't trust the EU.
We can only leave the EU by passing the WA, and the PD is meaningless since TM is going and her replacement is unknown, therefore putting simply the WA up for a vote is essentially saying to Parliament, "Are you going to block Brexit?"
If it goes down (quite likely) then a clear narrative is established to blame Labour and Remainer MPs. Because their excuse, that they disagree with the proposed Future Relationship, is taken away. Labour's Brexit? Needs the WA. Clarke's Brexit? Needs the WA. Boles' Brexit? Needs the WA. The WA that they will be rejecting. That's a win for TM.
And then there is the chance (25% perhaps?) that sufficient Labour MPs come across to get it passed. Then she goes, new Tory leader, and a GE - which is inevitable because a fresh mandate and a new Parliament is required in order to negotiate the Future Relationship. That works for Labour too. What they want above all else is a GE.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1111302773822418945
And if the WA does not pass, I see political benefits for TM, as per the post I wrote just below to 'Freggles'.
We were asked about Regional Government only about 20 years ago; we rejected it.
The countries with constitutional monarchies seem to be the ones that work well. Most of Northern Europe, and Canada - for a start.
I would encourage more engagement locally by raising more funds locally, and perhaps substantially increasing the role of the lower tiers of government. I would also genuinely be interested to understand how the likes of Germany and Canada exercise control when the nutters get control as in eg Liverpool and Militant; given Corbyn we may be seeing more of that.
Not at all sure about introducing a Year Zero to Parliament - do we really want the kind of shambles they have in Edinburgh?
Reform the Lords - probably. Regional Senators a la Australia or USA may be one idea - 2 per County, and 2 for London.
More MPs is a problem in your argument imo - "1 person representing ~100,000 people's interests seems a bit much." Of the countries you admire, Germany has 120k, Canada 100k.
And Parliament sits too much - 150 days a year, whilst most countries are more like 120 days. Cut the sitting days to about 100-110 a year (like Germany), then there will be less chance for the buggers to interfere too much.
(slight tongue in cheek)
600000 members would not accept a Leader foisted on them by 260 MPs
Have you not heard of Democracy Mike?
On 2nd thoughts as a 2nd Referendum supporter .....
*No need to worry. She did so well last time.
Smart. Certainly if the next GE does turn out to be a 'Jeremy Derby' he will be the cleverer of the participating Jeremys. By a distance, TBF.
No weakness or vulnerability is allowed.
I would argue that this is because the neoliberal victory made collective change seem impossible, so instead people were encouraged to fix themselves. If they failed to do so that failure was theirs alone - and so the reluctance to admit to weakness.
Latest estimate was 18.1 billion euros (currently £15.55bn) for the transition period btw. The rest was another 24.1b euros (£20.7bn).
https://twitter.com/HuffPostUK/status/1111303997061775361
https://twitter.com/LesEchos/status/1111288653890945025
https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/europe/0600983955087-brexit-pres-de-la-moitie-des-francais-favorable-a-un-no-deal-2256081.php#xtor=CS1-26
"No no no no no no no no"
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_danegeld.htm
Well. I suppose hackers who fancy a crack at the government's iFap database of one-handed typing enthusiasts.
Essentially, a chap is very polite and sweet, and makes one breakfast in bed, gives shoulder massages, etc.
Mr. rpjs, I think you underestimate the puritanical authoritarianism and technological illiteracy of our political class.
But the point remains: asking us to pay for the transition period without transition is bullshit.
CM2 ayes 189 not 188
EFTA ayes 64 not 65
CU ayes 265 not 264, noes 271 not 272