Ironically the Withdrawal Agreement may ultimately pass, even after a temporary No Deal but only with Labour and SNP votes.
Next week the Commons is likely to vote for the Deal and a permanent Customs Union and to contest the European elections through Labour votes mainly, most Tories will vote against both. If May proceeds against the will of her party she will no longer be able to continue as Tory leader and PM and would likely lose a VONC with the ERG and DUP voting against her. A general election would be inevitable and if Corbyn becomes PM with SNP support the Withdrawal Agreement could then pass but with Single Market and Customs Union BINO as the political declaration on the future relationship or subject to EUref2. The Tories would go into opposition under a hard Brexit leader like Boris, Raab or Leadsom.
Alternatively it is not even impossible Corbyn could become PM by the end of this week or next week as the DUP have now said they prefer Remain or permanent Customs Union and Single Market to the current Deal and backstop and they could then VONC May if she sticks to her Deal and switch to back Corbyn on that basis
If this fiasco has proved anything it's that there is no need for centrist Remainers to fear Corbyn. He will be as impotent as May. A majority of his MPs wont support a return to his 70s socialist Eutopia. He'll preside over a middle of the road centre left government. Just what we need after the insanity of the last 4 years.
If you say so. I hope that you remain UK tax resident notwithstanding your French connection so you can properly play your part in financially contributing to whatever comes down the track.
The WA is a 800 odd page document that in large part seeks to tidy up our departure from the EU and identify and resolve our various outstanding obligations. It does 2 other things of substance.
Firstly, it commits us to the backstop so that if we fail to come to any other deal the NI border remains largely unregulated. Secondly, it provides a transitional period in which we retain many of the benefits of being in the EU so that our businesses can continue to trade without additional impediment.
The first of these might be thought to tie our hands to some degree on the future relationship and is thought to be problematic. The second of these is genuinely important given the incompetent and inept way this government has sought to facilitate preparations for our departure.
I am just beyond exasperated with those self indulgent prats who have voted against this document 3 times now. Their reckless disregard for British business in rejecting the transitional period is contemptible. Why are they doing this?
Obviously most just do not want to leave. They want longer extensions, second referendums, pretty much anything that stops us from actually leaving. When these people were re-elected as recently as 2017 on an undertaking to implement Brexit that is disgusting behaviour, truly shameful.
Some do want to leave (they say) but not on these terms. When asked what is wrong with these terms they immediately start discussing the future relationship which is non binding and in the PA. The fact that these things are up for grabs in the second stage really seems to pass them by.
I am beyond fed up with our politicians, their stupidity, their self important arrogance, their ignorance and their complete indifference to the consequences of this continued uncertainty on our economy. They are scum.
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
Much more efficient strategy, isn't it? Why knock yourself out getting the support of 35,000 people to beat the guy at a GE when you can do the same job with 132 in the local association?
Grieve is a loss to the Tories, but he does not represent their voters or the Govt policy on the main issue of the day. I'm afraid he is as I'll suited to those who elected him on this matter as Kate Hoey is to hers, I'd have probably votes for his deselection last night were I a Beaconsfield Tory. I would vote to keep Boles or Letwin in place.
Except last nights Vote was one of confidence, not of deselection. Whether he is subsequently selected to stand for the Tories is another matter.
Grieve will get back in only if the UK has left the EU without a deal, or with a deal without the backstop (A potentially new idea from Merkel ?). If we haven't left by the time the next GE comes round I think he is not reselected.
If Dominic Grieve was the person responsible for MP’s having the final say on Brexit, then he is the person responsible for the chaos we are in and deserves to be punished.
The referendum wasn’t about MPs taking back control from the PM.
l.
Taking back control from the EU not the PM
As I say, Parliament controls the PM, it visa versa.
So, had Remain
I don’t know. What I do know is that the PM is answerable to Parliament
The basic fact is that Parliament was elected, May wasn’t, she was appointed by the Queen as having the confidence of Parliament. That last point is now debatable however.
But why does Mays deal, agreed with the EU, have to get parliamentary approval when Cameron’s renegotiation didn’t? .
Because that’s what Parliament, or at least the Commoms, which (unlike May) has a direct mandate from the people, decided. It’s their decision as the direct they don’t work together.
Again, May has no direct democratic mandate, it is dangerous to let her use 2016 to enable her to push through whatever fundamental changes she saw fit, and it was right for the representatives of the people sitting in Parliament to put her on a short leash. Don’t like the representatives? Then replace them at the next election.
"...you either have a representative democracy or a direct democracy, they don’t work together. "
That is the problem, but, given that a referendum was granted on the issue, and the previous deal didn't require ratification from the House, it was irresponsible for someone to propose what Grieve did, as it might lead to this, which it has. So sod him.
Deselection is a party, not a constitutional, matter. The Tories don’t own Beaconsfield as of right. Grieve, who was reflecting his constituents views as an MP should, can stand again as an Independent/TIG. My home town, Canterbury, showed in 2017 what happens when a local Tory candidate is out of kilter with his constituents. Beaconsfield being a Remain town I hope that whoever the local Tory branch foist on the town gets roundly defeated at the next election. Hopefully by Grieve. Not at all likely, I accept, but not impossible.
South Buckinghamshire which contains Beaconsfield did not vote Remain but was 51% Leave
Might a referendum between mays deal vs a customs union deal work? Taking out no deal and revoke/remain at the same time should be palatable for most if not their first preference. Hard to argue it doesn’t respect the previous referendum, tolerable for all bar the erg in the Tory party and gives labour an opportunity to unite on a clear choice of suppprting customs union and against mays deal.
Why would you exclude an option that on the polling seems to command majority support?
Because of the obvious resentment it would cause to leavers (whether that resentment is justified or not is another matter but it would exist and create problems for years to come). And would be very hard to get a remain referendum thru the current parliament or any that is likely to follow a general election.
Interesting idea of democracy, seeking to prevent the public choosing what looks like their preferred option.
Hearing so many people claiming their view is the democratic one from all sides in this toxic debate. It is not a logical argument. Democratic opinions are not black and white, shift over time, expressed through many ways including not just referendums but also general elections (so need MPs on side), choice of government (so need pm and cabinet onside). Of course each side can pick and choose parts of democracy that support their view and claim that trumps the oppositions claims, but it will not lead anywhere when the country is so split.
I think you’ll struggle ever to persuade me that it would be democratic to hold a referendum and not to include as an option the choice which consistently polls as by far the most popular.
If Dominic Grieve was the person responsible for MP’s having the final say on Brexit, then he is the person responsible for the chaos we are in and deserves to be punished.
The referendum wasn’t about MPs taking back control from the PM.
l.
Taking back control from the EU not the PM
As I say, Parliament controls the PM, it visa versa.
So, had Remain
I don’t know. What I do know is that the PM is answerable to Parliament
The basic fact is that Parliament was elected, May wasn’t, she was appointed by the Queen as having the confidence of Parliament. That last point is now debatable however.
But why does Mays deal, agreed with the EU, have to get parliamentary approval when Cameron’s renegotiation didn’t? .
Because that’s what Parliament, or at least the Commoms, which (unlike May) has a direct mandate from the people, decided. It’s their decision as the direct they don’t work together.
Again, May has no direct democratic mandate, it is dangerous to let her use 2016 to enable her to push through whatever fundamental changes she saw fit, and it was right for the representatives of the people sitting in Parliament to put her on a short leash. Don’t like the representatives? Then replace them at the next election.
"...you either have a representative democracy or a direct democracy, they don’t work together. "
That is the problem, but, given that a referendum was granted on the issue, and the previous deal didn't require ratification from the House, it was irresponsible for someone to propose what Grieve did, as it might lead to this, which it has. So sod him.
Deselection is a party, not a constitutional, matter. The Tories don’t own Beaconsfield as of right. Grieve, who was reflecting his constituents views as an MP should, can stand again as an Independent/TIG. My home town, Canterbury, showed in 2017 what happens when a local Tory candidate is out of kilter with his constituents. Beaconsfield being a Remain town I hope that whoever the local Tory branch foist on the town gets roundly defeated at the next election. Hopefully by Grieve. Not at all likely, I accept, but not impossible.
South Buckinghamshire which contains Beaconsfield did not vote Remain but was 51% Leave
Isn't Beaconsfield the most middle class place in the entire home counties north of the Thames ? Probably voted to remain, just.
Love the idea of a biblical prophecy about the Withdrawal Agreement and no-deal ; and also of Christ putting his hand on Nigel Farage's shoulders, and sending out him out into the future as an emissary.
South Buckinghamshire which contains Beaconsfield did not vote Remain but was 51% Leave
I think the constituency numbers we see quoted are extrapolated based on demographics? Obviously extrapolations won't be perfect but they're better than taking a raw number with a load of voters in neighbouring constituencies.
If this fiasco has proved anything it's that there is no need for centrist Remainers to fear Corbyn. He will be as impotent as May. A majority of his MPs wont support a return to his 70s socialist utopia. He'll preside over a middle of the road centre left government. Just what we need after the insanity of the last 4 years.
The fate of a Corbyn government would be determined by Nicola Sturgeon much as the fate of the May government has been determined by Arlene Foster anyway
Might a referendum between mays deal vs a customs union deal work? Taking out no deal and revoke/remain at the same time should be palatable for most if not their first preference. Hard to argue it doesn’t respect the previous referendum, tolerable for all bar the erg in the Tory party and gives labour an opportunity to unite on a clear choice of suppprting customs union and against mays deal.
Why would you exclude an option that on the polling seems to command majority support?
Because of the obvious resentment it would cause to leavers (whether that resentment is justified or not is another matter but it would exist and create problems for years to come). And would be very hard to get a remain referendum thru the current parliament or any that is likely to follow a general election.
Interesting idea of democracy, seeking to prevent the public choosing what looks like their preferred option.
Hearing so many people claiming their view is the democratic one from all sides in this toxic debate. It is not a logical argument. Democratic opinions are not black and white, shift over time, expressed through many ways including not just referendums but also general elections (so need MPs on side), choice of government (so need pm and cabinet onside). Of course each side can pick and choose parts of democracy that support their view and claim that trumps the oppositions claims, but it will not lead anywhere when the country is so split.
I think you’ll struggle ever to persuade me that it would be democratic to hold a referendum and not to include as an option the choice which consistently polls as by far the most popular.
I can go further and say I won’t be able to convince you. Equally I can not convince leavers that their view that not leaving would be undemocratic after they won the last referendum is only partially true. So trying to find a way that a bigger majority can live with, if not love, and can pass through the current political maze.
The WA is a 800 odd page document that in large part seeks to tidy up our departure from the EU and identify and resolve our various outstanding obligations. It does 2 other things of substance.
Firstly, it commits us to the backstop so that if we fail to come to any other deal the NI border remains largely unregulated. Secondly, it provides a transitional period in which we retain many of the benefits of being in the EU so that our businesses can continue to trade without additional impediment.
The first of these might be thought to tie our hands to some degree on the future relationship and is thought to be problematic. The second of these is genuinely important given the incompetent and inept way this government has sought to facilitate preparations for our departure.
I am just beyond exasperated with those self indulgent prats who have voted against this document 3 times now. Their reckless disregard for British business in rejecting the transitional period is contemptible. Why are they doing this?
Obviously most just do not want to leave. They want longer extensions, second referendums, pretty much anything that stops us from actually leaving. When these people were re-elected as recently as 2017 on an undertaking to implement Brexit that is disgusting behaviour, truly shameful.
Some do want to leave (they say) but not on these terms. When asked what is wrong with these terms they immediately start discussing the future relationship which is non binding and in the PA. The fact that these things are up for grabs in the second stage really seems to pass them by.
I am beyond fed up with our politicians, their stupidity, their self important arrogance, their ignorance and their complete indifference to the consequences of this continued uncertainty on our economy. They are scum.
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
As most of the Tory Party would vote against it
Why should the country at large and the EU care about May's party management difficulties, if they are preventing a way forward being reached? May, not parliament, is the immediate cause of the blockage.
After Grieve there must be a lot of nervous Tory MPs about. Even the soft-Brexit Leavers and Theresa's-Deal Leavers won't be safe, as only adherence to the strictest of mega-hard Brexits will be deemed the true path. The Ultras might even come after Boris and Rees-Mogg next.
The WA is a 800 odd page document that in large part seeks to tidy up our departure from the EU and identify and resolve our various outstanding obligations. It does 2 other things of substance.
Firstly, it commits us to the backstop so that if we fail to come to any other deal the NI border remains largely unregulated. Secondly, it provides a transitional period in which we retain many of the benefits of being in the EU so that our businesses can continue to trade without additional impediment.
The first of these might be thought to tie our hands to some degree on the future relationship and is thought to be problematic. The second of these is genuinely important given the incompetent and inept way this government has sought to facilitate preparations for our departure.
I am just beyond exasperated with those self indulgent prats who have voted against this document 3 times now. Their reckless disregard for British business in rejecting the transitional period is contemptible. Why are they doing this?
Obviously most just do not want to leave. They want longer extensions, second referendums, pretty much anything that stops us from actually leaving. When these people were re-elected as recently as 2017 on an undertaking to implement Brexit that is disgusting behaviour, truly shameful.
Some do want to leave (they say) but not on these terms. When asked what is wrong with these terms they immediately start discussing the future relationship which is non binding and in the PA. The fact that these things are up for grabs in the second stage really seems to pass them by.
I am beyond fed up with our politicians, their stupidity, their self important arrogance, their ignorance and their complete indifference to the consequences of this continued uncertainty on our economy. They are scum.
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
And how much does this Customs Union cost us?
Far less than not having one. We have the choice between maximum damage and damage limitation.
The WA is a 800 odd page document that in large part seeks to tidy up our departure from the EU and identify and resolve our various outstanding obligations. It does 2 other things of substance.
Firstly, it commits us to the backstop so that if we fail to come to any other deal the NI border remains largely unregulated. Secondly, it provides a transitional period in which we retain many of the benefits of being in the EU so that our businesses can continue to trade without additional impediment.
The first of these might be thought to tie our hands to some degree on the future relationship and is thought to be problematic. The second of these is genuinely important given the incompetent and inept way this government has sought to facilitate preparations for our departure.
I am just beyond
Some do want to leave (they say) but not on these terms. When asked what is wrong with these terms they immediately start discussing the future relationship which is non binding and in the PA. The fact that these things are up for grabs in the second stage really seems to pass them by.
I am beyond fed up with our politicians, their stupidity, their self important arrogance, their ignorance and their complete indifference to the consequences of this continued uncertainty on our economy. They are scum.
Scum they may be (I disagree) but what is the word for those who voted leave who are now amazed at the current situation.
You can either be amazed at the current situation and be wholly ignorant about politics or you can understand politics and not be remotely amazed.
But you cannot both understand politics and be amazed at today's events.
As you repeatedly predicted the WDA would be approved doesn't that suggest that you are somewhat ignorant about politics ?
Still predict it. My main point has always been we cannot have no deal. I am not wrong. Yet.
But the flavour of this chaos is a tactical by product of leaving. What I could have told you, and what everyone who voted leave from Michael Gove to our very own @DavidL also should have known or wargamed, is that there would be chaos.
I don't think anyone could have accurately predicted the last two years and nine months on 22nd June 2016.
Two things which I expected, but got wrong:-
1. The Conservatives would win an overall majority in a snap election 2. Pro-Brexit MP's would be happy with Brexit.
I don't think either expectation was outlandish.
The leave option on the ballot paper was undefined but it won by a narrow margin of 3.8%. The Government held a GE it didn't need to and lost its majority.
From that moment on it was a pretty good bet that chaos would ensue
After Grieve there must be a lot of nervous Tory MPs about. Even the soft-Brexit Leavers and Theresa's-Deal Leavers won't be safe, as only adherence to the strictest of mega-hard Brexit will be deemed the true path. The Ultras might even come after Boris and Rees-Mogg next.
South Buckinghamshire which contains Beaconsfield did not vote Remain but was 51% Leave
I think the constituency numbers we see quoted are extrapolated based on demographics? Obviously extrapolations won't be perfect but they're better than taking a raw number with a load of voters in neighbouring constituencies.
While about 500 people voted in the no confidence motion at the same time 10,000 of his electorate signed the petition to revoke brexit.
The last few weeks have shown how powerful the hard remain base is. The only question now is if we will have any brexit at all.
Might a referendum between mays deal vs a customs union deal work? Taking out no deal and revoke/remain at the same time should be palatable for most if not their first preference. Hard to argue it doesn’t respect the previous referendum, tolerable for all bar the erg in the Tory party and gives labour an opportunity to unite on a clear choice of suppprting customs union and against mays deal.
Why would you exclude an option that on the polling seems to command majority support?
Because of the obvious resentment it would cause to leavers (whether that resentment is justified or not is another matter but it would exist and create problems for years to come). And would be very hard to get a remain referendum thru the current parliament or any that is likely to follow a general election.
Interesting idea of democracy, seeking to prevent the public choosing what looks like their preferred option.
Hearing so many people claiming their view is the democratic one from all sides in this toxic debate. It is not a logical argument. Democratic opinions are not black and white, shift over time, expressed through many ways including not just referendums but also general elections (so need MPs on side), choice of government (so need pm and cabinet onside). Of course each side can pick and choose parts of democracy that support their view and claim that trumps the oppositions claims, but it will not lead anywhere when the country is so split.
I think you’ll struggle ever to persuade me that it would be democratic to hold a referendum and not to include as an option the choice which consistently polls as by far the most popular.
Pales into insignificance when compared to winning a referendum and not leaving I’m afraid
After Grieve there must be a lot of nervous Tory MPs about. Even the soft-Brexit Leavers and Theresa's-Deal Leavers won't be safe, as only adherence to the strictest of mega-hard Brexit will be deemed the true path. The Ultras might even come after Boris and Rees-Mogg next.
Might a referendum between mays deal vs a customs union deal work? Taking out no deal and revoke/remain at the same time should be palatable for most if not their first preference. Hard to argue it doesn’t respect the previous referendum, tolerable for all bar the erg in the Tory party and gives labour an opportunity to unite on a clear choice of suppprting customs union and against mays deal.
Why would you exclude an option that on the polling seems to command majority support?
Because of the obvious resentment it would cause to leavers (whether that resentment is justified or not is another matter but it would exist and create problems for years to come). And would be very hard to get a remain referendum thru the current parliament or any that is likely to follow a general election.
Interesting idea of democracy, seeking to prevent the public choosing what looks like their preferred option.
Hearing so many people claiming their view is the democratic one from all sides in this toxic debate. It is not a logical argument. Democratic opinions are not black and white, shift over time, expressed through many ways including not just referendums but also general elections (so need MPs on side), choice of government (so need pm and cabinet onside). Of course each side can pick and choose parts of democracy that support their view and claim that trumps the oppositions claims, but it will not lead anywhere when the country is so split.
I think you’ll struggle ever to persuade me that it would be democratic to hold a referendum and not to include as an option the choice which consistently polls as by far the most popular.
Pales into insignificance when compared to winning a referendum and not leaving I’m afraid
How about winning a referendum with a campaign that repeatedly holds out the offer of single-market membership, and various incompatible forms of soft Brexit, and then after realising that said campaign was won on the back of immigration, opting for a generally immigration-orientated hard Brexit ?
The WA is a 800 odd page document that in large part seeks to tidy up our departure from the EU and identify and resolve our various outstanding obligations. It does 2 other things of substance.
Firstly, it commits us to the backstop so that if we fail to come to any other deal the NI border remains largely unregulated. Secondly, it provides a transitional period in which we retain many of the benefits of being in the EU so that our businesses can continue to trade without additional impediment.
The first of these might be thought to tie our hands to some degree on the future relationship and is thought to be problematic. The second of these is genuinely important given the incompetent and inept way this government has sought to facilitate preparations for our departure.
I am just beyond exasperated with those self indulgent prats who have voted against this document 3 times now. Their reckless disregard for British business in rejecting the transitional period is contemptible. Why are they doing this?
Obviously most just do not want to leave. They want longer extensions, second referendums, pretty much anything that stops us from actually leaving. When these people were re-elected as recently as 2017 on an undertaking to implement Brexit that is disgusting behaviour, truly shameful.
Some do want to leave (they say) but not on these terms. When asked what is wrong with these terms they immediately start discussing the future relationship which is non binding and in the PA. The fact that these things are up for grabs in the second stage really seems to pass them by.
I am beyond fed up with our politicians, their stupidity, their self important arrogance, their ignorance and their complete indifference to the consequences of this continued uncertainty on our economy. They are scum.
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
As most of the Tory Party would vote against it
Why should the country at large and the EU care about May's party management difficulties, if they are preventing a way forward being reached? May, not parliament, is the immediate cause of the blockage.
The country voted Leave and most Leavers also oppose permanent Customs Union.
The only way it would be delivered is with a Corbyn minority government propped up by the SNP, which requires a VONC or general election sooner rather than later to be in prospect
Might a referendum between mays deal vs a customs union deal work? Taking out no deal and revoke/remain at the same time should be palatable for most if not their first preference. Hard to argue it doesn’t respect the previous referendum, tolerable for all bar the erg in the Tory party and gives labour an opportunity to unite on a clear choice of suppprting customs union and against mays deal.
Why would you exclude an option that on the polling seems to command majority support?
Because of the obvious resentment it would cause to leavers (whether that resentment is justified or not is another matter but it would exist and create problems for years to come). And would be very hard to get a remain referendum thru the current parliament or any that is likely to follow a general election.
Interesting idea of democracy, seeking to prevent the public choosing what looks like their preferred option.
Hearing so many people claiming their view is the democratic one from all sides in this toxic debate. It is not a logical argument. Democratic opinions are not black and white, shift over time, expressed through many ways including not just referendums but also general elections (so need MPs on side), choice of government (so need pm and cabinet onside). Of course each side can pick and choose parts of democracy that support their view and claim that trumps the oppositions claims, but it will not lead anywhere when the country is so split.
Might a referendum between mays deal vs a customs union deal work? Taking out no deal and revoke/remain at the same time should be palatable for most if not their first preference. Hard to argue it doesn’t respect the previous referendum, tolerable for all bar the erg in the Tory party and gives labour an opportunity to unite on a clear choice of suppprting customs union and against mays deal.
Why would you exclude an option that on the polling seems to command majority support?
Because of the obvious resentment it would cause to leavers (whether that resentment is justified or not is another matter but it would exist and create problems for years to come). And would be very hard to get a remain referendum thru the current parliament or any that is likely to follow a general election.
Interesting idea of democracy, seeking to prevent the public choosing what looks like their preferred option.
Hearing so many people claiming their view is the democratic one from all sides in this toxic debate. It is not a logical argument. Democratic opinions are not black and white, shift over time, expressed through many ways including not just referendums but also general elections (so need MPs on side), choice of government (so need pm and cabinet onside). Of course each side can pick and choose parts of democracy that support their view and claim that trumps the oppositions claims, but it will not lead anywhere when the country is so split.
I think you’ll struggle ever to persuade me that it would be democratic to hold a referendum and not to include as an option the choice which consistently polls as by far the most popular.
Pales into insignificance when compared to winning a referendum and not leaving I’m afraid
How about winning a referendum with a campaign that repeatedly holds out the offer of single-market membership, and then after realising that said campaign was won on the back of immigration, opting for a generally immigration-orientated hard Brexit ?
The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be.
If Dominic Grieve was the person responsible for MP’s having the final say on Brexit, then he is the person responsible for the chaos we are in and deserves to be punished.
The referendum wasn’t about MPs taking back control from the PM.
l.
Taking back control from the EU not the PM
As I say, Parliament controls the PM, it visa versa.
So, had Remain
I don’t know. What I do know is that the PM is answerable to Parliament
The basic fact is that Parliament was elected, May wasn’t, she was appointed by the Queen as having the confidence of Parliament. That last point is now debatable however.
But why does Mays deal, agreed with the EU, have to get parliamentary approval when Cameron’s renegotiation didn’t? .
Because that’s what Parliament, or at least the Commoms, which (unlike May) has a direct mandate from the people, decided. It’s their decision as the direct they don’t work together.
Again, May has no direct democratic mandate, it is dangerous to let her use 2016 to enable her to push through whatever fundamental changes she saw fit, and it was right for the representatives of the people sitting in Parliament to put her on a short leash. Don’t like the representatives? Then replace them at the next election.
"...you either have a representative democracy or a direct democracy, they don’t work together. "
That is the problem, but, given that a referendum was granted on the issue, and the previous deal didn't require ratification from the House, it was irresponsible for someone to propose what Grieve did, as it might lead to this, which it has. So sod him.
Deselection is a party, not a constitutional, matter. The Tories don’t own Beaconsfield as of right. Grieve, who was reflecting his constituents views as an MP should, can stand again as an Independent/TIG. My home town, Canterbury, showed in 2017 what happens when a local Tory candidate is out of kilter opefully by Grieve. Not at all likely, I accept, but not impossible.
South Buckinghamshire which contains Beaconsfield did not vote Remain but was 51% Leave
Isn't Beaconsfield the most middle class place in the entire home counties north of the Thames ? Probably voted to remain, just.
If Dominic Grieve was the person responsible for MP’s having the final say on Brexit, then he is the person responsible for the chaos we are in and deserves to be punished.
The referendum wasn’t about MPs taking back control from the PM.
l.
Taking back control from the EU not the PM
As I say, Parliament controls the PM, it visa versa.
So, had Remain
I don’t know. What I do know is that the PM is answerable to Parliament
The basic fact is that Parliament was elected, May wasn’t, she was appointed by the Queen as having the confidence of Parliament. That last point is now debatable however.
But why does Mays deal, agreed with the EU, have to get parliamentary approval when Cameron’s renegotiation didn’t? .
Because that’s what Parliament, or at least the Commoms, which (unlike May) has a direct mandate from the people, decided. It’s their decision as the direct tion.
"...you either have a representative democracy or a direct democracy, they don’t work together. "
That is the problem, but, given that a referendum was granted on the issue, and the previous deal didn't require ratification from the House, it was irresponsible for someone to propose what Grieve did, as it might lead to this, which it has. So sod him.
Deselection is a party, not a constitutional, matter. The Tories don’t own Beaconsfield as of right. Grieve, who was reflecting his constituents views as an MP should, can stand again as an Independent/TIG. My home town, Canterbury, showed in 2017 what happens when a local Tory candidate is out of kilter with his constituents. Beaconsfield being a Remain town I hope that whoever the local Tory branch foist on the town gets roundly defeated at the next election. Hopefully by Grieve. Not at all likely, I accept, but not impossible.
South Buckinghamshire which contains Beaconsfield did not vote Remain but was 51% Leave
Isn't Beaconsfield the most middle class place in the entire home counties north of the Thames ? Probably voted to remain, just.
Grieve's constituency contains Gerrards Cross and Burnham too not just Beaconsfield and effectively mirrors South Bucks, indeed it was created out of the old South Bucks constituency
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
South Bucks narrowly voted Leave but it's estimated the Beaconsfield constituency might just have voted Remain because it also includes areas from Wycombe borough which probably voted Remain like Marlow.
Brandon Lewis should over rule the decision on Dominic Grieve.
If not the UKIP takeover will be given a green light .
# Je suis Dominic .
If so Soubry would be proved right, purplementum and ex Kippers are now taking over Tory Associations as much as Momentum is taking over Labour Associations. CUK will soon be full of deselected Tory and Labour MPs
<<The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
<<The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
The fact that the vote was organised by a kipper may be unfortunate - but were all those who voted to remove/ no confidence him kippers? If not then you are wrong to aplogise.
Brandon Lewis should over rule the decision on Dominic Grieve.
If not the UKIP takeover will be given a green light .
# Je suis Dominic .
What grounds does he have to do so?
Arron Banks and Kippers orchestrating an infiltration campaign. This risks becoming our Militant Tendency. Last night I thought it was long standing members who had enough of Grieve but it seems like the opposite.
“The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal it no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. “
If the original referendum had been remain vs no deal do you seriously think we would have voted leave? I accept it is possible now but not at the time.
If you want no deal on the ballot then remain is valid too. The leave vote was won with a promise of managed deal so the best referendum question would be between two alternative managed deals that are clearly deliverable.
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
Actions have consequences.
And that applies to Grieve as well.
There are loads of ex kippers in the Tories. Anyway he'd have won the vote if he'd been acting as a Damien Green for instance.
<<The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
<<The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
I expect that most who voted against him were members of long standing.
Saying you're ashamed to be a Conservative is likely to queer your pitch with party members.
Brandon Lewis should over rule the decision on Dominic Grieve.
If not the UKIP takeover will be given a green light .
# Je suis Dominic .
What grounds does he have to do so?
Arron Banks and Kippers orchestrating an infiltration campaign. This risks becoming our Militant Tendency. Last night I thought it was long standing members who had enough of Grieve but it seems like the opposite.
How many people 'infiltrated' the Beaconsfield Conservatives ?
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
The fact that the vote was organised by a kipper may be unfortunate - but were all those who voted to remove/ no confidence him kippers? If not then you are wrong to aplogise.
The article I just read said that 200 members were new, given the margin of victory for the Kipper and given how few members there were it seems quite likely established Conservatives wanted him to stay. We should fight Arron Banks and not stand with him.
<<The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
Please don’t post that misleading nonsense, it has been long discredited.
We have established people wanted to leave, a referendum on how is fair enough. MPs deciding not to is not.
This isn't an argument, I'm afraid. As in all elections or referenda, there was a question or choice of words asked for , such as yes/no, vote for or not, in or out, supported by a campaign explaining what these words meant. Words never exist in a vacuum of explanation or context ; and the explanation given during the campaign was the one provided below.
<<The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
<<The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
South Bucks narrowly voted Leave but it's estimated the Beaconsfield constituency might just have voted Remain because it also includes areas from Wycombe borough which probably voted Remain like Marlow.
Its amusing that adjacent constituencies have Baker and Grieve as MPs.
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
Actions have consequences.
And that applies to Grieve as well.
Agreed that was my thought last night. But we should act based on party members and Grieves actions. Not Banks and our opponents actions.
Brandon Lewis should over rule the decision on Dominic Grieve.
If not the UKIP takeover will be given a green light .
# Je suis Dominic .
If so Soubry would be proved right, purplementum and ex Kippers are now taking over Tory Associations as much as Momentum is taking over Labour Associations. CUK will soon be full of deselected Tory and Labour MPs
<<The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
Please don’t post that misleading nonsense, it has been long discredited.
We have established people wanted to leave, a referendum on how is fair enough. MPs deciding not to is not.
This isn't an argument, I'm afraid. As in all elections or referenda, there was a question or choice of words asked for , such as yes/no, in or out, supported by a campaign explaining what these words meant. Words never exist in a vacuum of explanation or context ; and the explanation given during the campaign was the one provided below.
Not one of those clips was filmed during the campaign.
Almost all of them are taken out of context to twist their meaning.
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
Actions have consequences.
And that applies to Grieve as well.
Agreed that was my thought last night. But we should act based on party members and Grieves actions. Not Banks and our opponents actions.
It was party members who passed the VONC in Grieve.
I am just utterly baffled by the extent to which politicians seem oblivious to what the European Council said about 12 April.
Westminster is often described as a bubble, but now it seems to have detached itself altogether from external reality and floated off into Cloud Cuckoo Land.
If the original referendum had been remain vs no deal do you seriously think we would have voted leave? I accept it is possible now but not at the time.
If you want no deal on the ballot then remain is valid too. The leave vote was won with a promise of managed deal so the best referendum question would be between two alternative managed deals that are clearly deliverable.
I’d expect mays Deal to beat no deal by a huge margin, but it’s silly to include an option that has been defeated at stage one in a second leg of a referendum
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
As most of the Tory Party would vote against it
Why should the country at large and the EU care about May's party management difficulties, if they are preventing a way forward being reached? May, not parliament, is the immediate cause of the blockage.
The EU should care because they are the ones who could move. Mays position is that if she moves one way she loses votes the other. Secondly normally you would expect the more centrist opposition to come to a pragmatic position, but with Brexit the are more likely to be more pro remain. Those who are more Brexit-y in Labour are also moe left wing and therefore won’t give the ‘evil’ Tories their votes- I heard one say yesterday that he wouldn’t vote for the deal as it would let The Tories - and I’m chuckling to myself as I type this - complete the work of Thatcher.
In reality there is no party management issue for the Tories - every Tory could line up behind it and it still won’t pass without the DUP.
Ironically the Withdrawal Agreement may ultimately pass, even after a temporary No Deal but only with Labour and SNP votes.
Next week the Commons is likely to vote for the Deal and a permanent Customs Union and to contest the European elections through Labour votes mainly, most Tories will vote against both. If May proceeds against the will of her party she will no longer be able to continue as Tory leader and PM and would likely lose a VONC with the ERG and DUP voting against her. A general election would be inevitable and if Corbyn becomes PM with SNP support the Withdrawal Agreement could then pass but with Single Market and Customs Union BINO as the political declaration on the future relationship or subject to EUref2. The Tories would go into opposition under a hard Brexit leader like Boris, Raab or Leadsom.
Alternatively it is not even impossible Corbyn could become PM by the end of this week or next week as the DUP have now said they prefer Remain or permanent Customs Union and Single Market to the current Deal and backstop and they could then VONC May if she sticks to her Deal and switch to back Corbyn on that basis
No Tory MP would VONC his own government. The DUP would never put Corbyn into power.
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
Actions have consequences.
And that applies to Grieve as well.
Agreed that was my thought last night. But we should act based on party members and Grieves actions. Not Banks and our opponents actions.
It was party members who passed the VONC in Grieve.
Yes. Kipper party members that have infiltrated like Militant Tendency. That's not what I meant.
<<The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
The fact that the vote was organised by a kipper may be unfortunate - but were all those who voted to remove/ no confidence him kippers? If not then you are wrong to aplogise.
The article I just read said that 200 members were new, given the margin of victory for the Kipper and given how few members there were it seems quite likely established Conservatives wanted him to stay. We should fight Arron Banks and not stand with him.
It is up to each party to vet joiners - if the constituency party failed to do so then they reap the consequences - just as Labour did with Militant Tendency in the 70s/ 80s and their scions Momentum/ Antifa and HnH in the 2010s/2020s.
My girlfriend at Uni was a Beaconsfield babe, one stop on from Denham where the lazy rich oafs had a station built at the golf club. In other news lol @ creepy uncle Joe. Tip of the etc perhaps Can't see anyway around a GE now, and there's a risk of 'all sorts of psychos' cashing in on public exasperation and disgust. That's not including me, I'm a nice psycho. Maybe the election after this will be the bloodbath though? The 'attachment' to conlab is buckling. Scottish labour for northern labour mps and south eastern and east anglian Tories?
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
Actions have consequences.
And that applies to Grieve as well.
Agreed that was my thought last night. But we should act based on party members and Grieves actions. Not Banks and our opponents actions.
I’m not supporting either party but if a Labour MP had said they were ashamed to be in the party, and a week later they lost a no confidence vote would it be a surprise?
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
Actions have consequences.
And that applies to Grieve as well.
Agreed that was my thought last night. But we should act based on party members and Grieves actions. Not Banks and our opponents actions.
It was party members who passed the VONC in Grieve.
Yes. Kipper party members that have infiltrated like Militant Tendency. That's not what I meant.
And have you got any details on this 'infiltration' ?
Given RN's report on the Wealden Conservatives AGM Grieve getting a VONC doesn't seem surprising.
<<The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
Please don’t post that misleading nonsense, it has been long discredited.
We have established people wanted to leave, a referendum on how is fair enough. MPs deciding not to is not.
This isn't an argument, I'm afraid. As in all elections or referenda, there was a question or choice of words asked for , such as yes/no, in or out, supported by a campaign explaining what these words meant. Words never exist in a vacuum of explanation or context ; and the explanation given during the campaign was the one provided below.
Not one of those clips was filmed during the campaign.
Almost all of them are taken out of context to twist their meaning.
This depends when you think the campaign actually started, and the focused media campaign was already in full swing after Cameron's surprise all-out win in summer 2015, which is when the Hannan quote is from. Banks' founding of Leave.EU in July 2015 was the actual start to the public campaign, and he was still saying things like this, in public, all the way up up to a few months before the vote :
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
The fact that the vote was organised by a kipper may be unfortunate - but were all those who voted to remove/ no confidence him kippers? If not then you are wrong to aplogise.
The article I just read said that 200 members were new, given the margin of victory for the Kipper and given how few members there were it seems quite likely established Conservatives wanted him to stay. We should fight Arron Banks and not stand with him.
Most Conservative associations have seen rising membership since the start of 2018. There are a lot of people about who let their membership lapse, and then rejoined.
I am just utterly baffled by the extent to which politicians seem oblivious to what the European Council said about 12 April.
Westminster is often described as a bubble, but now it seems to have detached itself altogether from external reality and floated off into Cloud Cuckoo Land.
I think that was what yesterday was about - it showed the true colours of Labour. They don’t support Mays deal because it the Tories and they oppose everything they do. They can’t name anything hey don’t like about the WA and their proposal would require it but they won’t support May.
It’s like not agreeing to build the foundations of a house because you can’t agree on the paint colour for the living room. Your planning permission is about to run out, and the builders need time to get the trenches dug and concrete poured, but the politicians are sat around with a dulux colour book.
Just what is it about Brexit that correlates so highly with Maddy McCann and Diana conspiracy theories, paedophilia witch-hunts, strange professions of admiration for Vladimir Putin, upskirting, pantomime production and petty racism?
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
As most of the Tory Party would vote against it
Why should the country at large and the EU care about May's party management difficulties, if they are preventing a way forward being reached? May, not parliament, is the immediate cause of the blockage.
The EU should care because they are the ones who could move. Mays position is that if she moves one way she loses votes the other. Secondly normally you would expect the more centrist opposition to come to a pragmatic position, but with Brexit the are more likely to be more pro remain. Those who are more Brexit-y in Labour are also moe left wing and therefore won’t give the ‘evil’ Tories their votes- I heard one say yesterday that he wouldn’t vote for the deal as it would let The Tories - and I’m chuckling to myself as I type this - complete the work of Thatcher.
In reality there is no party management issue for the Tories - every Tory could line up behind it and it still won’t pass without the DUP.
I repeat again, why not at least explore the customs union and then the deal might pass with the support of, or abstention of, Labour. May has not convinced anyone who isn't in her tribe of the benefits of her deal - Labour, LD, SNP, Plaid, DUP as well as a large chunk of her own party.
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
As most of the Tory Party would vote against it
Why should the country at large and the EU care about May's party management difficulties, if they are preventing a way forward being reached? May, not parliament, is the immediate cause of the blockage.
The EU should care because they are the ones who could move. Mays position is that if she moves one way she loses votes the other. Secondly normally you would expect the more centrist opposition to come to a pragmatic position, but with Brexit the are more likely to be more pro remain. Those who are more Brexit-y in Labour are also moe left wing and therefore won’t give the ‘evil’ Tories their votes- I heard one say yesterday that he wouldn’t vote for the deal as it would let The Tories - and I’m chuckling to myself as I type this - complete the work of Thatcher.
In reality there is no party management issue for the Tories - every Tory could line up behind it and it still won’t pass without the DUP.
I repeat again, why not at least explore the customs union and then the deal might pass with the support of, or abstention of, Labour. May has not convinced anyone who isn't in her tribe of the benefits of her deal - Labour, LD, SNP, Plaid, DUP as well as a large chunk of her own party.
Just what is it about Brexit that correlates so highly with Maddy McCann and Diana conspiracy theories, paedophilia witch-hunts, strange professions of admiration for Vladimir Putin, upskirting, pantomime production and petty racism?
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
As most of the Tory Party would vote against it
Why should the country at large and the EU care about May's party management difficulties, if they are preventing a way forward being reached? May, not parliament, is the immediate cause of the blockage.
The EU should care because they are the ones who could move. Mays position is that if she moves one way she loses votes the other. Secondly normally you would expect the more centrist opposition to come to a pragmatic position, but with Brexit the are more likely to be more pro remain. Those who are more Brexit-y in Labour are also moe left wing and therefore won’t give the ‘evil’ Tories their votes- I heard one say yesterday that he wouldn’t vote for the deal as it would let The Tories - and I’m chuckling to myself as I type this - complete the work of Thatcher.
In reality there is no party management issue for the Tories - every Tory could line up behind it and it still won’t pass without the DUP.
I repeat again, why not at least explore the customs union and then the deal might pass with the support of, or abstention of, Labour. May has not convinced anyone who isn't in her tribe of the benefits of her deal - Labour, LD, SNP, Plaid, DUP as well as a large chunk of her own party.
The WA is a 800 odd page document that in large part seeks to tidy up our departure from the EU and identify and resolve our various outstanding obligations. It does 2 other things of substance.
Firstly, it commits us to the backstop so that if we fail to come to any other deal the NI border remains largely unregulated. Secondly, it provides a transitional period in which we retain many of the benefits of being in the EU so that our businesses can continue to trade without additional impediment.
The first of these might be thought to tie our hands to some degree on the future relationship and is thought to be problematic. The second of these is genuinely important given the incompetent and inept way this government has sought to facilitate preparations for our departure.
I am just beyond exasperated with those self indulgent prats who have voted against this document 3 times now. Their reckless disregard for British business in rejecting the transitional period is contemptible. Why are they doing this?
Obviously most just do not want to leave. They want longer extensions, second referendums, pretty much anything that stops us from actually leaving. When these people were re-elected as recently as 2017 on an undertaking to implement Brexit that is disgusting behaviour, truly shameful.
Some do want to leave (they say) but not on these terms. When asked what is wrong with these terms they immediately start discussing the future relationship which is non binding and in the PA. The fact that these things are up for grabs in the second stage really seems to pass them by.
I am beyond fed up with our politicians, their stupidity, their self important arrogance, their ignorance and their complete indifference to the consequences of this continued uncertainty on our economy. They are scum.
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
As most of the Tory Party would vote against it
Why should the country at large and the EU care about May's party management difficulties, if they are preventing a way forward being reached? May, not parliament, is the immediate cause of the blockage.
The country voted Leave and most Leavers also oppose permanent Customs Union.
The only way it would be delivered is with a Corbyn minority government propped up by the SNP, which requires a VONC or general election sooner rather than later to be in prospect
Only because May chooses to block off options that could see her deal pass.
My girlfriend at Uni was a Beaconsfield babe, one stop on from Denham where the lazy rich oafs had a station built at the golf club. In other news lol @ creepy uncle Joe. Tip of the etc perhaps Can't see anyway around a GE now, and there's a risk of 'all sorts of psychos' cashing in on public exasperation and disgust. That's not including me, I'm a nice psycho. Maybe the election after this will be the bloodbath though? The 'attachment' to conlab is buckling. Scottish labour for northern labour mps and south eastern and east anglian Tories?
I actually visited Denham Golf Club station way back in 2000, by virtue of it being the last Chiltern Main Line station inside the M25 (I also did the entire Tube/National Rail/DLR/tram network inside the M25 during season 1999/2000 for context).
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
So you object to the Kippers as people, but are okay with their policies?
The WA is a 800 odd page document that in large part seeks to tidy up our departure from the EU and identify and resolve our various outstanding obligations. It does 2 other things of substance.
Firstly, it commits us to the backstop so that if we fail to come to any other deal the NI border remains largely unregulated. Secondly, it provides a transitional period in which we retain many of the benefits of being in the EU so that our businesses can continue to trade without additional impediment.
The first of these might be thought to tie our hands to some degree on the future relationship and is thought to be problematic. The second of these is genuinely important given the incompetent and inept way this government has sought to facilitate preparations for our departure.
I am just beyond exasperated with those self indulgent prats who have voted against this document 3 times now. Their reckless disregard for British business in rejecting the transitional period is contemptible. Why are they doing this?
Obviously most just do not want to leave. They want longer extensions, second referendums, pretty much anything that stops us from actually leaving. When these people were re-elected as recently as 2017 on an undertaking to implement Brexit that is disgusting behaviour, truly shameful.
Some do want to leave (they say) but not on these terms. When asked what is wrong with these terms they immediately start discussing the future relationship which is non binding and in the PA. The fact that these things are up for grabs in the second stage really seems to pass them by.
I am beyond fed up with our politicians, their stupidity, their self important arrogance, their ignorance and their complete indifference to the consequences of this continued uncertainty on our economy. They are scum.
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
As most of the Tory Party would vote against it
Why should the country at large and the EU care about May's party management difficulties, if they are preventing a way forward being reached? May, not parliament, is the immediate cause of the blockage.
The country voted Leave and most Leavers also oppose permanent Customs Union.
The only way it would be delivered is with a Corbyn minority government propped up by the SNP, which requires a VONC or general election sooner rather than later to be in prospect
Only because May chooses to block off options that could see her deal pass.
The WA is a 800 odd page document that in large part seeks to tidy up our departure from the EU and identify and resolve our various outstanding obligations. It does 2 other things of substance.
Firstly, it commits us to the backstop so that if we fail to come to any other deal the NI border remains largely unregulated. Secondly, it provides a transitional period in which we retain many of the benefits of being in the EU so that our businesses can continue to trade without additional impediment.
The first of these might be thought to tie our hands to some degree on the future relationship and is thought to be problematic. The second of these is genuinely important given the incompetent and inept way this government has sought to facilitate preparations for our departure.
I am just beyond exasperated with those self indulgent prats who have voted against this document 3 times now. Their reckless disregard for British business in rejecting the transitional period is contemptible. Why are they doing this?
Obviously most just do not want to leave. They want longer extensions, second referendums, pretty much anything that stops us from actually leaving. When these people were re-elected as recently as 2017 on an undertaking to implement Brexit that is disgusting behaviour, truly shameful.
Some do want to leave (they say) but not on these terms. When asked what is wrong with these terms they immediately start discussing the future relationship which is non binding and in the PA. The fact that these things are up for grabs in the second stage really seems to pass them by.
I am beyond fed up with our politicians, their stupidity, their self important arrogance, their ignorance and their complete indifference to the consequences of this continued uncertainty on our economy. They are scum.
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
As most of the Tory Party would vote against it
Why should the country at large and the EU care about May's party management difficulties, if they are preventing a way forward being reached? May, not parliament, is the immediate cause of the blockage.
The country voted Leave and most Leavers also oppose permanent Customs Union.
The only way it would be delivered is with a Corbyn minority government propped up by the SNP, which requires a VONC or general election sooner rather than later to be in prospect
A majority of a majority is not necessarily a majority itself - and certainly not in this case.
Just what is it about Brexit that correlates so highly with Maddy McCann and Diana conspiracy theories, paedophilia witch-hunts, strange professions of admiration for Vladimir Putin, upskirting, pantomime production and petty racism?
Dear oh dear. To be honest, if you were Grieve, wouldn't you feel well rid of an organization that allows a bloke like that to take control of it?
My girlfriend at Uni was a Beaconsfield babe, one stop on from Denham where the lazy rich oafs had a station built at the golf club. In other news lol @ creepy uncle Joe. Tip of the etc perhaps Can't see anyway around a GE now, and there's a risk of 'all sorts of psychos' cashing in on public exasperation and disgust. That's not including me, I'm a nice psycho. Maybe the election after this will be the bloodbath though? The 'attachment' to conlab is buckling. Scottish labour for northern labour mps and south eastern and east anglian Tories?
I actually visited Denham Golf Club station way back in 2000, by virtue of it being the last Chiltern Main Line station inside the M25 (I also did the entire Tube/National Rail/DLR/tram network inside the M25 during season 1999/2000 for context).
I used to get very trotskyist as the train stopped there on my way to see my gf, if I hate one thing more than consistency its the entitled rich and their crappy golf clubs and fading country piles
I have no sympathy with Grieve. Being an MP is not a sinecure and it’s fitting that associations choose their own candidates. Too many MPs think they have a right to govern and if they voted out simply prostitute themselves to another association in the hope of being adopted elsewhere.
Part of the problem is however due to May. She has allowed Brexit to become the sole focus of political debate to the exclusion of all else and so the broad church political party has become more narrowly defined with increasingly polarised and trenchant positions being taken. This is not healthy for our democracy but Grieve himself has been a big part of that problem. May has made no attempt to build a consensus and her deal doesn’t command support because it is without merit. The result is people like Grieve and Letwin are trying to subvert the Gov and are ignoring those to whom they are accountable - their electorate. If Grieve’s unhappy with his predicament he can always force a by election and see what his voters think.
Bollocks, Grieve and 6 or 7 EUlovers leaving the party won't be a historic split. We should still prevent it, however, getting rid of the last vestiges of the federalists is in keeping with the movement of the party over the last 30 years.
If Grieve had done his duty and voted for the WA I think No. 10 would be minded to step in.
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
Actions have consequences.
And that applies to Grieve as well.
Agreed that was my thought last night. But we should act based on party members and Grieves actions. Not Banks and our opponents actions.
It was party members who passed the VONC in Grieve.
Yes. Kipper party members that have infiltrated like Militant Tendency. That's not what I meant.
Do you that for a fact or are you extrapolating from the one former kipper who proposed the resolution. Beaconsfield have been unhappy with Grieve for a while. This is not a surprise.
Interesting ; the Grieve case seems to be assuming larger proportions than you might think on this quieter weekend before the storm. A lot of Tories seem to be seeing it as a bellweather, not just for the party, but possibly also for the more general course of Brexit too over the next couple of weeks..
Comments
Next week the Commons is likely to vote for the Deal and a permanent Customs Union and to contest the European elections through Labour votes mainly, most Tories will vote against both. If May proceeds against the will of her party she will no longer be able to continue as Tory leader and PM and would likely lose a VONC with the ERG and DUP voting against her. A general election would be inevitable and if Corbyn becomes PM with SNP support the Withdrawal Agreement could then pass but with Single Market and Customs Union BINO as the political declaration on the future relationship or subject to EUref2. The Tories would go into opposition under a hard Brexit leader like Boris, Raab or Leadsom.
Alternatively it is not even impossible Corbyn could become PM by the end of this week or next week as the DUP have now said they prefer Remain or permanent Customs Union and Single Market to the current Deal and backstop and they could then VONC May if she sticks to her Deal and switch to back Corbyn on that basis
Bound to end in trouble and what does that say to existing activists who have fought this guy for years.
https://twitter.com/SamWhyte/status/1111612687509872641
Probably voted to remain, just.
From that moment on it was a pretty good bet that chaos would ensue
https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1111748200862486529?s=20
The last few weeks have shown how powerful the hard remain base is. The only question now is if we will have any brexit at all.
The only way it would be delivered is with a Corbyn minority government propped up by the SNP, which requires a VONC or general election sooner rather than later to be in prospect
If not the UKIP takeover will be given a green light .
# Je suis Dominic .
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY
And that applies to Grieve as well.
We have established people wanted to leave, a referendum on how is fair enough. MPs deciding not to is not.
“The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal it no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. “
If the original referendum had been remain vs no deal do you seriously think we would have voted leave? I accept it is possible now but not at the time.
If you want no deal on the ballot then remain is valid too. The leave vote was won with a promise of managed deal so the best referendum question would be between two alternative managed deals that are clearly deliverable.
Saying you're ashamed to be a Conservative is likely to queer your pitch with party members.
Almost all of them are taken out of context to twist their meaning.
Westminster is often described as a bubble, but now it seems to have detached itself altogether from external reality and floated off into Cloud Cuckoo Land.
If you want no deal on the ballot then remain is valid too. The leave vote was won with a promise of managed deal so the best referendum question would be between two alternative managed deals that are clearly deliverable.
I’d expect mays Deal to beat no deal by a huge margin, but it’s silly to include an option that has been defeated at stage one in a second leg of a referendum
In reality there is no party management issue for the Tories - every Tory could line up behind it and it still won’t pass without the DUP.
In other news lol @ creepy uncle Joe. Tip of the etc perhaps
Can't see anyway around a GE now, and there's a risk of 'all sorts of psychos' cashing in on public exasperation and disgust. That's not including me, I'm a nice psycho. Maybe the election after this will be the bloodbath though? The 'attachment' to conlab is buckling. Scottish labour for northern labour mps and south eastern and east anglian Tories?
Given RN's report on the Wealden Conservatives AGM Grieve getting a VONC doesn't seem surprising.
https://twitter.com/RobBurl/status/1111940134142963712?s=20
https://twitter.com/arron_banks/status/682125949245206528?lang=en
https://twitter.com/arron_banks/status/1111942593334501376?s=21
It’s like not agreeing to build the foundations of a house because you can’t agree on the paint colour for the living room. Your planning permission is about to run out, and the builders need time to get the trenches dug and concrete poured, but the politicians are sat around with a dulux colour book.
https://youtu.be/tzD4lfuC284
Just what is it about Brexit that correlates so highly with Maddy McCann and Diana conspiracy theories, paedophilia witch-hunts, strange professions of admiration for Vladimir Putin, upskirting, pantomime production and petty racism?
May, not parliament, is the immediate problem.
His social media activity is utterly inappropriate for the political editor of the national public service broadcaster.
He should resign, or be fired.
Part of the problem is however due to May. She has allowed Brexit to become the sole focus of political debate to the exclusion of all else and so the broad church political party has become more narrowly defined with increasingly polarised and trenchant positions being taken. This is not healthy for our democracy but Grieve himself has been a big part of that problem. May has made no attempt to build a consensus and her deal doesn’t command support because it is without merit. The result is people like Grieve and Letwin are trying to subvert the Gov and are ignoring those to whom they are accountable - their electorate. If Grieve’s unhappy with his predicament he can always force a by election and see what his voters think.
If Grieve had done his duty and voted for the WA I think No. 10 would be minded to step in.
He can always try and get a seat elsewhere if he wishes...
I've always thought it was unpaid (Or at a minimal rate) and only out of pocket expenses were reimbursed ?
Played the didn't spot the symbols card in an apology.