How are MPs meant to vote on G) ? parliament can't vote two options against each other in one vote.
It's a motion to revoke if we look to be heading out with no deal. The interesting bit is it is pushing the laughable'revoke and maybe we will reinvoke option'. Clause 4 looks extremely woolly.
That -(1) If, at midday on the second last Day before exit day, the condition specified in section 13(1)(d) of the Act (the passing of legislation approving a withdrawal agreement) is not satisfied, Her Majesty’s Government must immediately seek the agreement of the European Council under Article 50(3) of the Treaty to extend the date upon which the Treaties shall cease to apply to the United Kingdom;
(2) If, at midday on the last Day before exit day, no agreement has been reached (pursuant to (1) above) to extend the date upon which the Treaties shall cease to apply to the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government must immediately put a motion to the House of Commons asking it to approve ‘No Deal’;
(3) If the House does not approve the motion at (2) above, Her Majesty’s Government must immediately ensure that the notice given to the European Council under Article 50 of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union is revoked in accordance with United Kingdom and European law;
(4) If the United Kingdom’s notice under Article 50 is revoked pursuant to (3) above a Minister of Her Majesty’s Government shall cause an inquiry to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the question whether a model of a future relationship with the European Union likely to be acceptable to the European Union is likely to have majority support in the United Kingdom;
(5) If there is a referendum it shall be held on the question whether to trigger Article 50 and renegotiate that model;
(6) The Inquiry under paragraph (4) shall start within three months of the revocation; and
(7) References in this Motion to “Days” are to House of Commons sitting days; references to “exit day” are references to exit day as defined in the Act; references to the Act are to The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; and references to the Treaty are to the Treaty on European Union
I thought they voted for all of these last week and nothing passed?
Yes. The plan is to do it again and Wednesday. Not sure when, if ever, it becomes an eliminator round!
Has Bercow given up on his rule about not bringing back the same motion again?
Part of the Letwin plan
notwithstanding the practice of the House, any motion on matters that have been the subject of a prior decision of the House in the current Session may be the subject of a decision
If there was a majority for the deal it seems the gov could always have gotten round Bercow if they had to, but there isn't. Given the Letwin motion is explicit in allowing past rejected decisions to be reconsidered it'd be a bit weird if the House did not direct the speaker to allow the MV again, if they want.
Gauke might need a UNICORN to get out of this one!
Never thought much of Gauke since was Osborne’s Chief Sec to the Treasury and ordinarily wouldn’t be sorry to see him sacked because he is as hopeless as Grayling but in fairness to him he has been very loyal to May.
As a Leaver, I still prefer broad church political parties to narrow single issue ones.
It looks like we will end up with two narrow parties at each extreme and FPTP causing carnage among the innocent moderates in between.
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
In theory the 'Mh' should always be 'V' in Gaelic, though a lot of Mhairis seem to go for Marree.
So it's either pronounced "Varry" or "Marry", and one doesn't know which it is until one asks. Aaargh...
Not an expert, but I think the h added after the initial consonant in Gaelic puts the word into the vocative case. Mairi is the nominative but when you address her or do something to her she becomes Mhairi (pronounced "Vahri")
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
And whatever the final choice is they should be made to rank them or knock out the least popular etc. and not just vote them as individual propositions. I assume that is the general idea, although whether that is the specific idea for tomorrow, not sure.
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
And whatever the final choice is they should be made to rank them or knock out the least popular etc. and not just vote them as individual propositions. I assume that is the general idea, although whether that is the specific idea for tomorrow, not sure.
Doesn't seem to be given Wednesday is also to be used, so not sure what the first round even accomplished. Multi stage is fine, but it could be knocked out in a day.
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
what is the point then , we are just as well staying as we are and having some influence rather than paying all the fees and being told what to do , what our laws are , etc.
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
what is the point then , we are just as well staying as we are and having some influence rather than paying all the fees and being told what to do , what our laws are , etc.
Yeah, this is why a true Norway option is superior. Cut Northern Ireland off at the knees.
We had 8 options voted on the other day. Wasn't that supposed to have greatly narrowed the field?
This is the Legislature taking the piss.....on the road to No Deal.
Letwin I believe wants to shift from FPTP last week to AV or STV next week to ensure a majority for 1 of the options which Bercow chooses. May then intends to put her Deal up against whichever option wins the indicative votes in a final Brexit runoff amongst MPs
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
what is the point then , we are just as well staying as we are and having some influence rather than paying all the fees and being told what to do , what our laws are , etc.
Remember that next time you try for independence Malc.
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
And whatever the final choice is they should be made to rank them or knock out the least popular etc. and not just vote them as individual propositions. I assume that is the general idea, although whether that is the specific idea for tomorrow, not sure.
Doesn't seem to be given Wednesday is also to be used, so not sure what the first round even accomplished. Multi stage is fine, but it could be knocked out in a day.
They should use AV, which is clearly what Letwin wants, but he is of course dealing with a load of dinosaurs used to 18th century procedure.
As I understood it tomorrow was to identify a preferred option and Wednesday, maybe, was to choose between it and May's deal and decide how to proceed.
The useless load of motions tabled by MPs don't fill me with great hope that someone is in command of this process. Yet I thought the same last Wednesday, but Bercow did a great job cutting out all the pointless options and wrecking amendments. I can only hope he'll do the same tomorrow.
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
'A' permanent customs union will destroy a significant proportion of our non EU trade overnight.
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
And whatever the final choice is they should be made to rank them or knock out the least popular etc. and not just vote them as individual propositions. I assume that is the general idea, although whether that is the specific idea for tomorrow, not sure.
Doesn't seem to be given Wednesday is also to be used, so not sure what the first round even accomplished. Multi stage is fine, but it could be knocked out in a day.
They should use AV, which is clearly what Letwin wants, but he is of course dealing with a load of dinosaurs used to 18th century procedure.
As I understood it tomorrow was to identify a preferred option and Wednesday, maybe, was to choose between it and May's deal and decide how to proceed.
The useless load of motions tabled by MPs don't fill me with great hope that someone is in command of this process. Yet I thought the same last Wednesday, but Bercow did a great job cutting out all the pointless options and wrecking amendments. I can only hope he'll do the same tomorrow.
Lots to get through tomorrow. How long will be allocated to the Great Petition Debate?
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
And whatever the final choice is they should be made to rank them or knock out the least popular etc. and not just vote them as individual propositions. I assume that is the general idea, although whether that is the specific idea for tomorrow, not sure.
Doesn't seem to be given Wednesday is also to be used, so not sure what the first round even accomplished. Multi stage is fine, but it could be knocked out in a day.
They should use AV, which is clearly what Letwin wants, but he is of course dealing with a load of dinosaurs used to 18th century procedure.
As I understood it tomorrow was to identify a preferred option and Wednesday, maybe, was to choose between it and May's deal and decide how to proceed.
The useless load of motions tabled by MPs don't fill me with great hope that someone is in command of this process. Yet I thought the same last Wednesday, but Bercow did a great job cutting out all the pointless options and wrecking amendments. I can only hope he'll do the same tomorrow.
Lots to get through tomorrow. How long will be allocated to the Great Petition Debate?
Edit: and which MP will put his/er head above the parapet and speak in favour of Revoke?
Surprised Boles is still taking the Tory Whip after resigning from Grantham. Doubt Smith will worry to much about what Boles thinks and for once Smith would be right.
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
what is the point then , we are just as well staying as we are and having some influence rather than paying all the fees and being told what to do , what our laws are , etc.
Remember that next time you try for independence Malc.
They should grow a pair then and just leave, they are bigger fearties than Scotland , seems whole of UK is spineless Full of wind and piss and scared to do it for themselves.
I expect Bercow to cut the choices down to a max of 6 . Can’t see him picking no deal again and the backstop one either as that’s got no chance of being negotiated .
They should chalk off all but the three most popular options.
The problem is the indicative votes process - which I support - needs to reach a result reasonably quickly to be credible. Dragging the process out is exactly the faint lifeline May needs to keep hanging on by her fingertips. The HoC coalescing around something quickly is important, not least because of the time pressures.
Also some of these options are a bit...weird. I hope they make more sense on the order paper than in a tweet.
I'm irritated it is not even the plan to definitively settle it tomorrow. Given they had a first go last week, why couldn't they say that no matter what tomorrow they whittle them down to the final option? It adds to the question of what last week was even about.
I really don't see why Bercow would call some of them again though, if they receive so few votes last time
Leicester were the best team of the year, and we have trophy to prove it
Looks like we may well spoil Wolves party. Shame
Leicester were the best team in the league that year. Liverpool certainly are not the best team in the league this year. City are far superior. But, football can be a capricious mistress.
The big question is whether Utd will roll over on derby day to stop Liverpool winning the title. I think they might. A title for Liverpool is a living nightmare for Utd supporters. They can live with City winning it.
The problem is the indicative votes process - which I support - needs to reach a result reasonably quickly to be credible. Dragging the process out is exactly the faint lifeline May needs to keep hanging on by her fingertips. The HoC coalescing around something quickly is important, not least because of the time pressures.
Also some of these options are a bit...weird. I hope they make more sense on the order paper than in a tweet.
I'm irritated it is not even the plan to definitively settle it tomorrow. Given they had a first go last week, why couldn't they say that no matter what tomorrow they whittle them down to the final option? It adds to the question of what last week was even about.
I really don't see why Bercow would call some of them again though, if they receive so few votes last time
Leicester were the best team of the year, and we have trophy to prove it
Looks like we may well spoil Wolves party. Shame
Leicester were the best team in the league that year. Liverpool certainly are not the best team in the league this year. City are far superior. But, football can be a capricious mistress.
Well in 7 games time, we will see.
After our new form under Rogers, that last game of the season for Man City at home may not be the walkover that was expected.
The big question is whether Utd will roll over on derby day to stop Liverpool winning the title. I think they might. A title for Liverpool is a living nightmare for Utd supporters. They can live with City winning it.
Yes, it's not like Man Utd need the points, is it?
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
The big question is whether Utd will roll over on derby day to stop Liverpool winning the title. I think they might. A title for Liverpool is a living nightmare for Utd supporters. They can live with City winning it.
Maybe. But United have to set about becoming the primary team in Manchester again. That requires City to start losing the title.....
The big question is whether Utd will roll over on derby day to stop Liverpool winning the title. I think they might. A title for Liverpool is a living nightmare for Utd supporters. They can live with City winning it.
Yes, it's not like Man Utd need the points, is it?
Plus United fans do not want the treble equalled/superseded.
The big question is whether Utd will roll over on derby day to stop Liverpool winning the title. I think they might. A title for Liverpool is a living nightmare for Utd supporters. They can live with City winning it.
Yes, it's not like Man Utd need the points, is it?
They do. But still. I reckon most Utd fans would trade a CL place for Liverpool not winning the title!
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
'A' permanent customs union will destroy a significant proportion of our non EU trade overnight.
Deal plus Customs Union leads with Deltapoll today 36% for 29% against, as opposed to 45% opposed to No Deal 38% for, 37% opposed to EEA/EFTA 28% for and 36% opposed to the Malthouse compromise and 23% for.
Revoke only leads 41% to 41% and EUref2 only leads 40% to 38% and Common Market 2.0 only leads 40% to 35% so all have lower leads than Deal plus Customs Union.
Even Tory voters support Deal plus CU 42% to 27%, albeit more support No Deal
The problem is the indicative votes process - which I support - needs to reach a result reasonably quickly to be credible. Dragging the process out is exactly the faint lifeline May needs to keep hanging on by her fingertips. The HoC coalescing around something quickly is important, not least because of the time pressures.
Also some of these options are a bit...weird. I hope they make more sense on the order paper than in a tweet.
I'm irritated it is not even the plan to definitively settle it tomorrow. Given they had a first go last week, why couldn't they say that no matter what tomorrow they whittle them down to the final option? It adds to the question of what last week was even about.
I really don't see why Bercow would call some of them again though, if they receive so few votes last time
Leicester were the best team of the year, and we have trophy to prove it
Looks like we may well spoil Wolves party. Shame
Leicester were the best team in the league that year. Liverpool certainly are not the best team in the league this year. City are far superior. But, football can be a capricious mistress.
I disagree. I think Spurs were the best side in 2015-16, they just didn't realise it until it was too late. In August 2015 they were happy to play out a 0-0 draw at home to Everton, for example.
The big question is whether Utd will roll over on derby day to stop Liverpool winning the title. I think they might. A title for Liverpool is a living nightmare for Utd supporters. They can live with City winning it.
They won't roll over, they are still chasing a Champions League spot. They might well lose but that's a different matter.
A MP is paid £77k a year. They get further expenses to run an office and employ staff. They have a pension scheme and get their travel expenses paid and get help with accommodation costs.
The problem is the indicative votes process - which I support - needs to reach a result reasonably quickly to be credible. Dragging the process out is exactly the faint lifeline May needs to keep hanging on by her fingertips. The HoC coalescing around something quickly is important, not least because of the time pressures.
Also some of these options are a bit...weird. I hope they make more sense on the order paper than in a tweet.
I'm irritated it is not even the plan to definitively settle it tomorrow. Given they had a first go last week, why couldn't they say that no matter what tomorrow they whittle them down to the final option? It adds to the question of what last week was even about.
I really don't see why Bercow would call some of them again though, if they receive so few votes last time
Leicester were the best team of the year, and we have trophy to prove it
Looks like we may well spoil Wolves party. Shame
Leicester were the best team in the league that year. Liverpool certainly are not the best team in the league this year. City are far superior. But, football can be a capricious mistress.
I disagree. I think Spurs were the best side in 2015-16, they just didn't realise it until it was too late. In August 2015 they were happy to play out a 0-0 draw at home to Everton, for example.
I would love to agree, as my son supports them, and I support Forest. But they simply lacked the killer instinct. Leicester ground out wins very often by being unplayable on the counter attack, and were the better team overall.
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
'A' permanent customs union will destroy a significant proportion of our non EU trade overnight.
Presumably during the two years of our transition we would negotiate the requisite FTAs with those non EU trade partners.
The big question is whether Utd will roll over on derby day to stop Liverpool winning the title. I think they might. A title for Liverpool is a living nightmare for Utd supporters. They can live with City winning it.
Yes, it's not like Man Utd need the points, is it?
Plus United fans do not want the treble equalled/superseded.
Still think they’d trade that to avoid a Scouser title.
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
'A' permanent customs union will destroy a significant proportion of our non EU trade overnight.
Deal plus Customs Union leads with Deltapoll today 36% for 29% against, as opposed to 45% opposed to No Deal 38% for, 37% opposed to EEA/EFTA 28% for and 36% opposed to the Malthouse compromise and 23% for.
Revoke only leads 41% to 40% and EUref2 only leads 40% to 38% and Common Market 2.0 only leads 40% to 35% so all have lower leads than Deal plus Customs Union.
Even Tory voters support Deal plus CU 42% to 27%, albeit more support No Deal
The problem is the indicative votes process - which I support - needs to reach a result reasonably quickly to be credible. Dragging the process out is exactly the faint lifeline May needs to keep hanging on by her fingertips. The HoC coalescing around something quickly is important, not least because of the time pressures.
Also some of these options are a bit...weird. I hope they make more sense on the order paper than in a tweet.
I'm irritated it is not even the plan to definitively settle it tomorrow. Given they had a first go last week, why couldn't they say that no matter what tomorrow they whittle them down to the final option? It adds to the question of what last week was even about.
I really don't see why Bercow would call some of them again though, if they receive so few votes last time
Leicester were the best team of the year, and we have trophy to prove it
Looks like we may well spoil Wolves party. Shame
Leicester were the best team in the league that year. Liverpool certainly are not the best team in the league this year. City are far superior. But, football can be a capricious mistress.
I disagree. I think Spurs were the best side in 2015-16, they just didn't realise it until it was too late. In August 2015 they were happy to play out a 0-0 draw at home to Everton, for example.
I would love to agree, as my son supports them, and I support Forest. But they simply lacked the killer instinct. Leicester ground out wins very often by being unplayable on the counter attack, and were the better team overall.
Goal difference can be taken as a proxy for how good teams are, but its not everything - by that measure England should have romped home in the 6 nations. The 10 odd points Leicester finished ahead of Spurs probably meant more than their superior GD.
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
The big question is whether Utd will roll over on derby day to stop Liverpool winning the title. I think they might. A title for Liverpool is a living nightmare for Utd supporters. They can live with City winning it.
Yes, it's not like Man Utd need the points, is it?
Plus United fans do not want the treble equalled/superseded.
Still think they’d trade that to avoid a Scouser title.
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
I'm both here and there about it. Plenty of MPs also. Not enough Cons MPs that said.
I am sure you are, but you might as well campaign to have the law of gravity repealed for all the good it will do, unless we can tell the EU what we *do* want, sharpish.
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
The big question is whether Utd will roll over on derby day to stop Liverpool winning the title. I think they might. A title for Liverpool is a living nightmare for Utd supporters. They can live with City winning it.
Yes, it's not like Man Utd need the points, is it?
Plus United fans do not want the treble equalled/superseded.
Still think they’d trade that to avoid a Scouser title.
Wouldn't we all
People say that, and I know what you mean (we’d never hear the end of it!). But City buying the league sticks in the craw and the pseudo-Scousers on here, who have no discernible connection with Merseyside, are clearly decent folk - Eagles, KLE4
The problem is the indicative votes process - which I support - needs to reach a result reasonably quickly to be credible. Dragging the process out is exactly the faint lifeline May needs to keep hanging on by her fingertips. The HoC coalescing around something quickly is important, not least because of the time pressures.
Also some tof these options are a bit...weird. I hope they make more sense on the order paper than in a tweet.
I'm irritated it is not even the plan to definitively settle it tomorrow. Given they had a first go last week, why couldn't they say that no matter what tomorrow they whittle them down to the final option? It adds to the question of what last week was even about.
I really don't see why Bercow would call some of them again though, if they receive so few votes last time
Leicester were the best team of the year, and we have trophy to prove it
Looks like we may well spoil Wolves party. Shame
Leicester were the best team in the league that year. Liverpool certainly are not the best team in the league this year. City are far superior. But, football can be a capricious mistress.
I disagree. I think Spurs were the best side in 2015-16, they just didn't realise it until it was too late. In August 2015 they were happy to play out a 0-0 draw at home to Everton, for example.
I would love to agree, as my son supports them, and I support Forest. But they simply lacked the killer instinct. Leicester ground out wins very often by being unplayable on the counter attack, and were the better team overall.
Goal difference can be taken as a proxy for how good teams are, but its not everything - by that measure England should have romped home in the 6 nations. The 10 odd points Leicester finished ahead of Spurs probably meant more than their superior GD.
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
If you think No Deal is the outcome when a majority of MPs, the public, and the EU oppose it, I have a bridge to sell you.
Unfortunately only the MPs have a say, and there is no majority for any other course of action. There may be a notional majority for "Common Market 2.0" but half of those would only vote for it if it came with a confirmatory vote, and the other half would only support it if it doesn't.
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
'A' permanent customs union will destroy a significant proportion of our non EU trade overnight.
Presumably during the two years of our transition we would negotiate the requisite FTAs with those non EU trade partners.
Go Liam.
Why would they in "a" customs union they have access to our market anyway. The only way this works is if we're in "the" customs union
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
I'm both here and there about it. Plenty of MPs also. Not enough Cons MPs that said.
I am sure you are, but you might as well campaign to have the law of gravity repealed for all the good it will do, unless we can tell the EU what we *do* want, sharpish.
I was staring at the very apple tree only yesterday AAMOF.
The manifesto that saw the Tory party lose their majority?
Of course fox hunting and social care and May’s inability to say anything except “strong and stable” didn’t cost any votes did they ? Of course it was all Brexit, on which Labour also campaigned on a Leave ticket.
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
'A' permanent customs union will destroy a significant proportion of our non EU trade overnight.
Less destruction than NOT being in the/a customs union however. We can't compare with membership of the European Union. Every Brexit outcome represents a downgrade. Staying in the customs union means a smaller downgrade overall.
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
'A' permanent customs union will destroy a significant proportion of our non EU trade overnight.
Presumably during the two years of our transition we would negotiate the requisite FTAs with those non EU trade partners.
Go Liam.
Why would they in "a" customs union they have access to our market anyway. The only way this works is if we're in "the" customs union
It is asymmetric if it is "a" customs union. Unless we have the accompanying FTAs. Otherwise we have to let goods in tariff free but our goods are subject to tariffs.
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
Fascinating article on how the EU and Ireland will manage the border if UK leaves without a deal.
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
Comments
That -(1) If, at midday on the second last Day before exit day, the condition specified in section 13(1)(d) of the Act (the passing of legislation approving a withdrawal agreement) is not satisfied, Her Majesty’s Government must immediately seek the agreement of the European Council under Article 50(3) of the Treaty to extend the date upon which the Treaties shall cease to apply to the United Kingdom;
(2) If, at midday on the last Day before exit day, no agreement has been reached (pursuant to (1) above) to extend the date upon which the Treaties shall cease to apply to the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government must immediately put a motion to the House of Commons asking it to approve ‘No Deal’;
(3) If the House does not approve the motion at (2) above, Her Majesty’s Government must immediately ensure that the notice given to the European Council under Article 50 of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union is revoked in accordance with United Kingdom and European law;
(4) If the United Kingdom’s notice under Article 50 is revoked pursuant to (3) above a Minister of Her Majesty’s Government shall cause an inquiry to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the question whether a model of a future relationship with the European Union likely to be acceptable to the European Union is likely to have majority support in the United Kingdom;
(5) If there is a referendum it shall be held on the question whether to trigger Article 50 and renegotiate that model;
(6) The Inquiry under paragraph (4) shall start within three months of the revocation; and
(7) References in this Motion to “Days” are to House of Commons sitting days; references to “exit day” are references to exit day as defined in the Act; references to the Act are to The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; and references to the Treaty are to the Treaty on European Union
Play Your Brexit Cards Right....
Good Game. Good Game.
notwithstanding the practice of the House, any motion on matters that have been the subject of a prior decision of the House in the current Session may be the subject of a decision
If there was a majority for the deal it seems the gov could always have gotten round Bercow if they had to, but there isn't. Given the Letwin motion is explicit in allowing past rejected decisions to be reconsidered it'd be a bit weird if the House did not direct the speaker to allow the MV again, if they want.
Nice!
Surely that should be it?
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/03/bahrain-post-race-analysis-2019.html
. . . It is rising concern that a ‘no deal’ might sooner or later become unavoidable that leads Europe’s two big political beasts to Mr Varadkar’s door to seek clarity on how the Irish border would be managed.
Because a ‘no deal’ presents the EU with a political trilemma - balancing the need to show solidarity with Ireland, while supporting the Good Friday Agreement and ‘no hard border’, and protecting the integrity of the EU single market. . . .
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/30/leo-varadkar-hold-talks-angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-reality/
'Mh' is also meant to be 'V' in Irish.
As I understood it tomorrow was to identify a preferred option and Wednesday, maybe, was to choose between it and May's deal and decide how to proceed.
The useless load of motions tabled by MPs don't fill me with great hope that someone is in command of this process. Yet I thought the same last Wednesday, but Bercow did a great job cutting out all the pointless options and wrecking amendments. I can only hope he'll do the same tomorrow.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/31/newport-west-byelection-voters-look-away-from-main-parties-for-renewal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Apologies if others posted a link earlier.
After our new form under Rogers, that last game of the season for Man City at home may not be the walkover that was expected.
If you think No Deal is the outcome when a majority of MPs, the public, and the EU oppose it, I have a bridge to sell you.
Revoke only leads 41% to 41% and EUref2 only leads 40% to 38% and Common Market 2.0 only leads 40% to 35% so all have lower leads than Deal plus Customs Union.
Even Tory voters support Deal plus CU 42% to 27%, albeit more support No Deal
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/polls/brexit-conservatives
https://twitter.com/mike_fabricant/status/1112080121819738112?s=21
Our non-EU trade is greater than our EU trade, too.
They really should be doing better than this...
Go Liam.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47756377
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/31/newport-west-byelection-voters-look-away-from-main-parties-for-renewal
How many saved deposits will there be?
It wouldn't surprise me if there were still only two saved.
People say that, and I know what you mean (we’d never hear the end of it!). But City buying the league sticks in the craw and the pseudo-Scousers on here, who have no discernible connection with Merseyside, are clearly decent folk - Eagles, KLE4
They repeatedly ignored that manifesto commitment until John Major had to make it a confidence matter.
You are reaping what you sowed.
I have heard that gravity is nothing but a marxist/bourgeois concept delete as applicable., and so should be defeated.
All Smith is doing is what Major did.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1112434746993324032
There may be a notional majority for "Common Market 2.0" but half of those would only vote for it if it came with a confirmatory vote, and the other half would only support it if it doesn't.
Leave with No Deal <600,000 after ?5 months
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963
Revoke >6,000,000 after 2 weeks.
I’m pointing out that I didn’t sow anything. The fools who didn’t listen to Maggie about getting consent for Maastricht sowed everything.
Good explainer here: https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1112292385705390081