How could that be done procedurally? Votes are always y/n to a proposition, you could only force a choice between two propositions by a procedural vote and this is not likely to carry.
Indeed - but say Wednesday May's deal fails, then today's winner gets put up, a relieved Commons passes it. Assuming it's CM2.0, that requires the current WA, plus some verbiage added to the PD.
But the "verbiage" would be very important and would need to be pored over by all sides and MPs would want to be happy that the EU were genuinely signed up to it. It's hard to imagine that being achieved by next week, which means that a delay would be required.
It could form the proposal that needs to be in play by 12 April in order to achieve a further extension to 22 May.
Remember May 22's status is somewhat moot - that was conditional on the WA passing last week.
I tend to agree that it's likely to be offered if we make progress and convince them everything can be sorted before the EP election... but it does increase the pressure on the "verbiage" being in order.
The rubicon window seems to have moved from another referendum to supersoft Brexit. That's bad news for ultra-remain.
Let it be super soft. If people dont like it they can vote against the govt at the next GE. The one thing that is bound to set a dangerous precedent is the side that losr changing the rules
Mr. Pulpstar, bad for sustainability and public trust, too.
For all its flaws, a second referendum has the advantage of consulting the people rather than letting the assortment of tittering harlequins in Parliament fumble their way to some atrocious customs union.
The latter concept is ridiculous, retaining the costs of membership whilst losing what influence we had. A desire to remain is contrary to the referendum result but at least has the merit of honesty. The customs union tosh is like divorcing your wife, moving out, but still paying her mortgage.
It's also interesting that whilst the electorate is broadly moving to support either remain or leaving with no deal, the response of the political class has been to use May's rejected deal as a starting point and then try and move in an even more pro-EU direction. They may achieve a political consensus on Westminster's centre ground, but it may lack much common ground with the electorate.
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Haha who says its against the will of the people?!
That's why we need to have a confirmatory referendum.
Yeah yeah
So everytime the establishment lose, they just do nothing for 3 years then ask again? I don't think I like that precedent. We voted Leave, so we should leave.
The Leave campaign always said it would be a slow process, and many of them said a second referendum would be a good idea.
Dominic Cummings: As a matter of democratic accountability, given the enormous importance of so many issues that would be decided in an Article 50 renegotiation – a far, far bigger deal than a normal election – it seems right to give people a vote on it.
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
Tory MP Drax using a point of order to try and retract his vote for the government deal last week
What a loser. No doubt it wasn't an easy choice but there is at least dignity even in a u turn, and he doesn't even want that.
It's very much like the Death of Stalin, where members of the Politburo start putting their hands up in favour of motion, before pulling them down again when they worry it might be unpopular.
The only possible reason is he copped a lot of flak from the ultra Brexit fanclub as a result of shifting, whilst all the praise he used to get has now shifted to ‘The Spartans’, and because he ended up on the losing side is now angry as it was all for nothing.
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
JRM is just wasting time. Now Hoey to continue the pantomime.
The entire day is a waste of time.
Not at all. It remains possible that the Commons will achieve in a few days what the government has failed to do in a few years.
Not really comparable though because whatever happens in the next few days is so dependent on what has been occurring in the last few years. Could a more cohesive and collaborative approach have been tried from the start? Sure, and we might not be in as bad a position as we are, but it would still have taken the better part of a few years I have no doubt, so the 'days' vs 'years' comparison in effectiveness is not truly fair.
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
If polls showed 75% of people would prefer to remain rather than leave under the terms negotiated, would you still argue that it’s undemcoratic to check with them first?
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
If that is what he is saying, then he would be calling for a second referendum now even if Leave were 90-10 ahead in the polls
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
If polls showed 75% of people would prefer to remain rather than leave under the terms negotiated, would you still argue that it’s undemcoratic to check with them first?
I support a referendum to remain. Even when I did not support one I never claimed it was undemocratic to do so, so try that nonsense with someone else before asking if I 'still' argue it would be undemocratic. What I object to is your logic obviously being that polling should lead to a change, except when you decide it doesn't for something else. It doesn't hold up, and your assumption about my reasoning shows that, because you assume it is about people not wanting a referendum, rather than calling our your reasoning.
JRM is just wasting time. Now Hoey to continue the pantomime.
The entire day is a waste of time.
Not at all. It remains possible that the Commons will achieve in a few days what the government has failed to do in a few years.
What - listen to the instructions of the people to leave the EU ? I very much doubt that.
To be honest the results of the IVs so far have given me some hope that Parliament may well do just that. And as a matter of principle I rather like these indicative votes for something that has a fundemental constitutional consequence.
The Romans tried that. How do you bribe voters in a secret ballot? Being the imaginative people they were, they worked out the answer.
A politician's agent would contact a political boss who would contract to deliver, say, 300 votes, in return for a fee. The money was then deposited with a third party. If the politician got elected, then the money was released. If he wasn't, the money was returned to him. Thus, the 300 voters would be incentivised to keep their promise.
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
It isn't what he is saying. Representative democracy and direct democracy are so different that it is almost misleading that they share the name.
But as you are clearly happy with the analogy: we have GEs every five years, and - crucially - a mechanism for shortening that timescale when it all goes to shit. Presumably you agree that it would be appropriate for similar rules to apply to direct democracy? Especially given that just being in parliament or being pm is dead easy - even May is capable of it - whereas things mandated by direct democratic decisions can be very difficult, and can turn out to be even more difficult than they appeared at the time of the vote.
"Liberals today, instead of defending open markets, promote existing cartels and new monopolies. As a result, more than a decade after the financial crash, the banking behemoths that rule global finance are still ‘too big to fail’. Our everyday economy is dominated by the Frightful Five – Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Alphabet, the parent company of Google. By controlling access to information, these tech monopolies restrict not just economic competition but also free speech. Their plutocratic power undermines both open markets and democratic debate."
I thought a good explanation of the issue I heard recently was that capitalism works when everybody can get equal access to information about the market, from which you can judge price and inefficiency.
The big tech companies not have the best resources to process the information, they also control the flow of information, and in doing they have the "perfect" information vs the rest who only see an imperfect delayed snapshot.
In order to gain a better insight, companies have to do a deal with all of these big 5, in return for sharing with them, so they can't lose.
On a "social" level, watching the two higher up from twitter on JRE podcast the other week was a pretty enlightening just how in a bubble they are.
JRM is just wasting time. Now Hoey to continue the pantomime.
The entire day is a waste of time.
Not at all. It remains possible that the Commons will achieve in a few days what the government has failed to do in a few years.
What - listen to the instructions of the people to leave the EU ? I very much doubt that.
To be honest the results of the IVs so far have given me some hope that Parliament may well do just that. And as a matter of principle I rather like these indicative votes for something that has a fundemental constitutional consequence.
Agreed. Even if they are happening uncomfortably late.
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
It isn't what he is saying. Representative democracy and direct democracy are so different that it is almost misleading that they share the name.
But as you are clearly happy with the analogy: we have GEs every five years, and - crucially - a mechanism for shortening that timescale when it all goes to shit. Presumably you agree that it would be appropriate for similar rules to apply to direct democracy? Especially given that just being in parliament or being pm is dead easy - even May is capable of it - whereas things mandated by direct democratic decisions can be very difficult, and can turn out to be even more difficult than they appeared at the time of the vote.
It is what he is saying. If the reasoning is that the will of the people has changed then that requires proof that the will has changed, which he uses polls to determine, which applies to GE's. The argument about things going to crap and needing to revisit things is why I for one do support a referendum, and as I noted to william even when I didn't support one I never claimed it was undemocratic to want one.
A referendum is a bad idea which, unfortunately, is the best option we currently have. And there are good reasons for one and bad reasons. Ones based on polling are not good reasons, in my view, because the peoples' view might be very different soon. If we do leave, somehow, and rejoin immediately drops to 10% (I expect it would be higher, but let us imagine) what would that say about the will of the people, who were asking for remain in the polls not long before?
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
It isn't what he is saying. Representative democracy and direct democracy are so different that it is almost misleading that they share the name.
But as you are clearly happy with the analogy: we have GEs every five years, and - crucially - a mechanism for shortening that timescale when it all goes to shit. Presumably you agree that it would be appropriate for similar rules to apply to direct democracy? Especially given that just being in parliament or being pm is dead easy - even May is capable of it - whereas things mandated by direct democratic decisions can be very difficult, and can turn out to be even more difficult than they appeared at the time of the vote.
Only if you agree that we will have referendum on membership every 5 years which will be enacted completely within one week of the result.
It would cause chaos of course but that is what you are now advocating anyway.
If CM2 can achieve a clear overall majority of MPs the upshot will be that the WA passes and we leave by 30 June at the latest. The same if it just wins the indicative contest and is then used as a stick by Mrs May to get her deal through. WA passed, we leave, PD either unchanged or now reflecting the CM2 aspiration.
Therefore the PV faction should oppose and if Labour want a PRE Brexit general election they should try to look like they are supporting it but be hoping that the wheels come off.
Chances of the wheels coming off? Surely not negligible.
JRM is just wasting time. Now Hoey to continue the pantomime.
The entire day is a waste of time.
Not at all. It remains possible that the Commons will achieve in a few days what the government has failed to do in a few years.
What - listen to the instructions of the people to leave the EU ? I very much doubt that.
To be honest the results of the IVs so far have given me some hope that Parliament may well do just that. And as a matter of principle I rather like these indicative votes for something that has a fundemental constitutional consequence.
Agreed. Even if they are happening uncomfortably late.
Why the Letwin plan, whatever its flaws, didn't pass the first time I do not know. I'm half convinced May herself was annoyed it didn't.
The Romans tried that. How do you bribe voters in a secret ballot? Being the imaginative people they were, they worked out the answer.
A politician's agent would contact a political boss who would contract to deliver, say, 300 votes, in return for a fee. The money was then deposited with a third party. If the politician got elected, then the money was released. If he wasn't, the money was returned to him. Thus, the 300 voters would be incentivised to keep their promise.
There was a bribery scandal in St Albans in 1851 and as a result St Albans lost its MP until 1885.
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
It isn't what he is saying. Representative democracy and direct democracy are so different that it is almost misleading that they share the name.
But as you are clearly happy with the analogy: we have GEs every five years, and - crucially - a mechanism for shortening that timescale when it all goes to shit. Presumably you agree that it would be appropriate for similar rules to apply to direct democracy? Especially given that just being in parliament or being pm is dead easy - even May is capable of it - whereas things mandated by direct democratic decisions can be very difficult, and can turn out to be even more difficult than they appeared at the time of the vote.
Only if you agree that we will have referendum on membership every 5 years which will be enacted completely within one week of the result.
It would cause chaos of course but that is what you are now advocating anyway.
Nothing has to change. We had to elect a govt promising a referendum in order to get one. If public opinion is so inclined, the next GE will see a party promising a second ref elected, whats the problem?
Surely one of them will have that in their manifesto?
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
It isn't what he is saying. Representative democracy and direct democracy are so different that it is almost misleading that they share the name.
But as you are clearly happy with the analogy: we have GEs every five years, and - crucially - a mechanism for shortening that timescale when it all goes to shit. Presumably you agree that it would be appropriate for similar rules to apply to direct democracy? Especially given that just being in parliament or being pm is dead easy - even May is capable of it - whereas things mandated by direct democratic decisions can be very difficult, and can turn out to be even more difficult than they appeared at the time of the vote.
Only if you agree that we will have referendum on membership every 5 years which will be enacted completely within one week of the result.
It would cause chaos of course but that is what you are now advocating anyway.
No, it is not what I am advocating. I am simply pointing out that a workable theory of direct democracy would have rules *analogous* to, but not identical with, those governing representative democracy. Do you think no such rules should apply?
Bold move by Bercow. Might have been better to have included no deal and see it voted down again, but Bercow's ruling will concentrate MPs' minds.
Baron now complaining about the selection. However level of support last time does provide a justification.
Indeed. I don't have time for Bercow on a lot of things, but that call seems perfectly fair. Grieve's wasn't called either and infairness I doubt he's complaining.
If CM2 can achieve a clear overall majority of MPs the upshot will be that the WA passes and we leave by 30 June at the latest. The same if it just wins the indicative contest and is then used as a stick by Mrs May to get her deal through. WA passed, we leave, PD either unchanged or now reflecting the CM2 aspiration.
Therefore the PV faction should oppose and if Labour want a PRE Brexit general election they should try to look like they are supporting it but be hoping that the wheels come off.
Chances of the wheels coming off? Surely not negligible.
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
It isn't what he is saying. Representative democracy and direct democracy are so different that it is almost misleading that they share the name.
But as you are clearly happy with the analogy: we have GEs every five years, and - crucially - a mechanism for shortening that timescale when it all goes to shit. Presumably you agree that it would be appropriate for similar rules to apply to direct democracy? Especially given that just being in parliament or being pm is dead easy - even May is capable of it - whereas things mandated by direct democratic decisions can be very difficult, and can turn out to be even more difficult than they appeared at the time of the vote.
Only if you agree that we will have referendum on membership every 5 years which will be enacted completely within one week of the result.
It would cause chaos of course but that is what you are now advocating anyway.
No, it is not what I am advocating. I am simply pointing out that a workable theory of direct democracy would have rules *analogous* to, but not identical with, those governing representative democracy. Do you think no such rules should apply?
You are the one who just said "Representative democracy and direct democracy are so different that it is almost misleading that they share the name."
Why then should they have rules analagous to a GE? The referendum had rules which were agreed by Parliament and the Electoral Commission. What you are actually saying is they should have rules that allow you to overturn a result you don't like.
Bercow responds by suggesting that A (backstop withdrawal) is a unicorn (as indeed it is) and that B (no deal) has been defeated multiple times in the House and - as Baron himself says - is the legal default and therefore doesn't need selecting for.
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
It isn't what he is saying. Representative democracy and direct democracy are so different that it is almost misleading that they share the name.
But as you are clearly happy with the analogy: we have GEs every five years, and - crucially - a mechanism for shortening that timescale when it all goes to shit. Presumably you agree that it would be appropriate for similar rules to apply to direct democracy? Especially given that just being in parliament or being pm is dead easy - even May is capable of it - whereas things mandated by direct democratic decisions can be very difficult, and can turn out to be even more difficult than they appeared at the time of the vote.
Only if you agree that we will have referendum on membership every 5 years which will be enacted completely within one week of the result.
It would cause chaos of course but that is what you are now advocating anyway.
Nothing has to change. We had to elect a govt promising a referendum in order to get one. If public opinion is so inclined, the next GE will see a party promising a second ref elected, whats the problem?
Surely one of them will have that in their manifesto?
I agree. I was just following Ishmael's rather tortuous logic.
The Romans tried that. How do you bribe voters in a secret ballot? Being the imaginative people they were, they worked out the answer.
A politician's agent would contact a political boss who would contract to deliver, say, 300 votes, in return for a fee. The money was then deposited with a third party. If the politician got elected, then the money was released. If he wasn't, the money was returned to him. Thus, the 300 voters would be incentivised to keep their promise.
There was a bribery scandal in St Albans in 1851 and as a result St Albans lost its MP until 1885.
If CM2 can achieve a clear overall majority of MPs the upshot will be that the WA passes and we leave by 30 June at the latest. The same if it just wins the indicative contest and is then used as a stick by Mrs May to get her deal through. WA passed, we leave, PD either unchanged or now reflecting the CM2 aspiration.
Therefore the PV faction should oppose and if Labour want a PRE Brexit general election they should try to look like they are supporting it but be hoping that the wheels come off.
Chances of the wheels coming off? Surely not negligible.
CM2 = FOM.
Ain't gonna happen.
If it does, there will be an anti immigration party doing quite well in future Elections, but so be it. If it was hard Brexit there would be a concerted effort from Centrists. Nothing is ever settled is it? All that has happened really is the consensus of "We are in the EU and that's that" which was established for the first 15 years of this century, is no longer there.
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
It isn't what he is saying. Representative democracy and direct democracy are so different that it is almost misleading that they share the name.
But as you are clearly happy with the analogy: we have GEs every five years, and - crucially - a mechanism for shortening that timescale when it all goes to shit. Presumably you agree that it would be appropriate for similar rules to apply to direct democracy? Especially given that just being in parliament or being pm is dead easy - even May is capable of it - whereas things mandated by direct democratic decisions can be very difficult, and can turn out to be even more difficult than they appeared at the time of the vote.
Only if you agree that we will have referendum on membership every 5 years which will be enacted completely within one week of the result.
It would cause chaos of course but that is what you are now advocating anyway.
Nothing has to change. We had to elect a govt promising a referendum in order to get one. If public opinion is so inclined, the next GE will see a party promising a second ref elected, whats the problem?
Surely one of them will have that in their manifesto?
I agree. I was just following Ishmael's rather tortuous logic.
Yes, sorry, I knew we were in agreement, I should have said so
Bercow responds by suggesting that A (backstop withdrawal) is a unicorn (as indeed it is) and that B (no deal) has been defeated multiple times in the House and - as Baron himself says - is the legal default and therefore doesn't need selecting for.
The defeated multiple times is not much of a reason in itself when the Letwin business motion explicitly allows the House to vote on items it has previously rejected, but it has been decisively rejected and it doesn't hurt people to remind people of the legal default.
It is what he is saying. If the reasoning is that the will of the people has changed then that requires proof that the will has changed, which he uses polls to determine, which applies to GE's. The argument about things going to crap and needing to revisit things is why I for one do support a referendum, and as I noted to william even when I didn't support one I never claimed it was undemocratic to want one.
A referendum is a bad idea which, unfortunately, is the best option we currently have. And there are good reasons for one and bad reasons. Ones based on polling are not good reasons, in my view, because the peoples' view might be very different soon. If we do leave, somehow, and rejoin immediately drops to 10% (I expect it would be higher, but let us imagine) what would that say about the will of the people, who were asking for remain in the polls not long before?
You're misrepresenting my argument.
There are two separate elements. Firstly, for the reasons Dominic Cummings outlined, it is a good idea to have a confirmatory referendum on the outcome of Article 50 regardless of the state of public opinion. Secondly, while in general terms if it were apparent that there was a settled consensus behind the initial decision it might be ok to proceed without confirmation, in the specific circumstance where it appears that public opinion has moved against that decision then there is an absolute imperative to seek confirmation.
The ERG nutjobs now whining over Bercows choices .
No deal has been done to cremation and the whole point is to come to a compromise . No deal will never be supported by a majority of MPs. The ERG need to STFU and either vote for Mays deal or join UKIP.
It is what he is saying. If the reasoning is that the will of the people has changed then that requires proof that the will has changed, which he uses polls to determine, which applies to GE's. The argument about things going to crap and needing to revisit things is why I for one do support a referendum, and as I noted to william even when I didn't support one I never claimed it was undemocratic to want one.
A referendum is a bad idea which, unfortunately, is the best option we currently have. And there are good reasons for one and bad reasons. Ones based on polling are not good reasons, in my view, because the peoples' view might be very different soon. If we do leave, somehow, and rejoin immediately drops to 10% (I expect it would be higher, but let us imagine) what would that say about the will of the people, who were asking for remain in the polls not long before?
You're misrepresenting my argument.
There are two separate elements. Firstly, for the reasons Dominic Cummings outlined, it is a good idea to have a confirmatory referendum on the outcome of Article 50 regardless of the state of public opinion. Secondly, while in general terms if it were apparent that there was a settled consensus behind the initial decision it might be ok to proceed without confirmation, in the specific circumstance where it appears that public opinion has moved against that decision then there is an absolute imperative to seek confirmation.
I would dispute I'm misrepresenting it, just disagreeing with it's breadth of implication because you are artificially restricting it because you want it. But I don't think we're likely to persuade each other on that score so will drop it.
A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called B No deal - 160 same as last time C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time) F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time. H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
FPT Got B wrong. Wasn't called. I got the rest right.
Revised predictions
C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV -280 (268 last time) G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time.
Some of these may win a majority. Perhaps more than one, which is fine as some are content and some are process.
If CM2 can achieve a clear overall majority of MPs the upshot will be that the WA passes and we leave by 30 June at the latest. The same if it just wins the indicative contest and is then used as a stick by Mrs May to get her deal through. WA passed, we leave, PD either unchanged or now reflecting the CM2 aspiration.
Therefore the PV faction should oppose and if Labour want a PRE Brexit general election they should try to look like they are supporting it but be hoping that the wheels come off.
Chances of the wheels coming off? Surely not negligible.
CM2 = FOM.
Ain't gonna happen.
Hmm. I think you might be right. May's Deal + CU or Common Market 0.5 perhaps?
The ERG nutjobs now whining over Bercows choices .
No deal has been done to cremation and the whole point is to come to a compromise . No deal will never be supported by a majority of MPs. The ERG need to STFU and either vote for Mays deal or join UKIP.
As Drax shows, even some (who surely knew MV2.5 would lose) who came to reluctantly back May's deal no longer will. Baker is perhaps more honest than most in that he at least raises the possibility he would take down the government rather than see some things happen. Even if it makes little sense.
Bob James was axed by the party in February after accusing Riley of prostituting her Jewish heritage with her campaign against anti-Semitism.
Saying that her campaign was 'poisoning the memory of her ancestors', he also accused Ms Riley of taking '30 pieces of silver' from the Tory Party, and had repeatedly compared Zionists to the Nazis.
But a leaked email shows labour chiefs ignored a complaint about Mr James's tweets last year.
Mr James was first reported to the party in January 2018 by activist Euan Philipps from the pressure group Labour Against Anti-Semitism.
Mr Philipps sent the Labour complaints team a comprehensive dossier of Mr James' offensive tweets, together with details of the part of the country in which he lived and the local party to which he belonged.
I agree. I was just following Ishmael's rather tortuous logic.
No you were not. You need to answer the question why direct decisions should be immune to the equivalent of an early election under the ftpa and not subject to any time limit. Saying that General Elections should in some way act as a proxy are unworkable, because General Elections are about more than one issue.
All primary decisions in life need some sort of review mechanism. You are in a ridiculous position because you don't trust the electorate to replicate the 2016 result, so you have to pretend to think that referendum results are unique in a way they just aren't. As soon as you make any concession at all on any kind of review mechanism you are stuffed, and you know it.
So, again: should referendum results never, ever be subject to any form of review in any circumstances?
A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called B No deal - 160 same as last time C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time) F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time. H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
FPT Got B wrong. Wasn't called. I got the rest right.
Revised predictions
C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV -280 (268 last time) G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time.
Some of these may win a majority. Perhaps more than one, which is fine as some are content and some are process.
Fine so long as they actually pick something on Wednesday! No reason to delay for crying out loud.
I agree. I was just following Ishmael's rather tortuous logic.
No you were not. You need to answer the question why direct decisions should be immune to the equivalent of an early election under the ftpa and not subject to any time limit. Saying that General Elections should in some way act as a proxy are unworkable, because General Elections are about more than one issue.
All primary decisions in life need some sort of review mechanism. You are in a ridiculous position because you don't trust the electorate to replicate the 2016 result, so you have to pretend to think that referendum results are unique in a way they just aren't. As soon as you make any concession at all on any kind of review mechanism you are stuffed, and you know it.
So, again: should referendum results never, ever be subject to any form of review in any circumstances?
Elect a party with a 2nd ref in their Manifesto. We never got one when UKIP won a couple of seats/got 20% in a poll.
The TIGgers are such scaredy cats they wont even risk by elections in seats they won in 2017, and they supposedly have the public's change of opinion on the EU behind them
Out of that lot Raab has the best chance I think as he's got the fewest enemies... Although the Murdoch press will support Hunt for what that's worth these days...
Raab is a lightweight and a moron. He couldn't hack it as Brexit secretary. Yeah: May undermined him. So what? He should have been a damn sight tougher. If he can't deal with that, he doesn't have the balls needed to be leader or PM.
Frankly, no-one in the Cabinet particularly impresses. The Tories are split, are messing up the country and need to go away into a darkened corner and grow up before bothering the rest of us.
His academic record suggests otherwise to the accusation of being a moron. His employment record before before becoming an MP pushes strongly back against your accusation. Something to do with Westminster perhaps.
He did not understand about the importance of the Dover-Calais route to our trade. I don't give two hoots about his academic record. I have spent over three decades dealing with people with fantastic academic records who are as stupid as fuck. Being good at whatever he was doing before he became an MP says nothing about his achievements as an MP and there and in Cabinet he has not distinguished himself. He looks - and is - out of his depth.
Not exactly what he said about Dover-Calais
He said he didn’t realise it was “quite as significant” as it was.
That’s a relative statement rather than the absolute one you report
I don't think there is a contradiction. But in any case it hardly helps his case, does it? Not quite as significant as what, exactly? Our exports from the port of Liverpool perhaps? Or Maryport? For God's sake, the first thing a Brexit secretary should have done is got a briefing on our trade and what routes it uses. He might even have thought to get such a briefing before he became a Brexiteer and started campaigning for us to leave.
In the context it sounded like (made up numbers for illustration) he thought it was 70% of trade and it turned out to be 80%
And it was a reference to before being appointed vs after it
Goodness knows that’s there’s enough to criticise the government for without making stuff up
That we are still talking about it - and that it is about the only thing anyone knows about Raab - is ample demonstration of his utter ineffectiveness as a politician.
Nah. A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has its boots on
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
It isn't what he is saying. Representative democracy and direct democracy are so different that it is almost misleading that they share the name.
But as you are clearly happy with the analogy: we have GEs every five years, and - crucially - a mechanism for shortening that timescale when it all goes to shit. Presumably you agree that it would be appropriate for similar rules to apply to direct democracy? Especially given that just being in parliament or being pm is dead easy - even May is capable of it - whereas things mandated by direct democratic decisions can be very difficult, and can turn out to be even more difficult than they appeared at the time of the vote.
Only if you agree that we will have referendum on membership every 5 years which will be enacted completely within one week of the result.
It would cause chaos of course but that is what you are now advocating anyway.
Nothing has to change. We had to elect a govt promising a referendum in order to get one. If public opinion is so inclined, the next GE will see a party promising a second ref elected, whats the problem?
Surely one of them will have that in their manifesto?
The problem is that a general election is about which party do you want to govern and is not poll on just one issue. If it is truly just a one issue poll you can reverse the Labour and LD percentages from GE 2017 and that just isn't going to happen.
I prefer May's deal Vs a Remain/No Deal referendum
Voting to remain before we implemented the vote to leave would be asking for civil unrest.
How can you democratically justify leaving against the will of the people at the time we leave?
Do you think we should immediately call a general election anytime an opinion poll shows the governing party to be behind?
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We elect people to parliament to do a job for a defined term. It's very different from a constitutional decision which requires a national consensus in order to be sustainable.
It is precisely what you are saying, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is pretty lousy.
It isn't what he is saying. Representative democracy and direct democracy are so different that it is almost misleading that they share the name.
But as you are clearly happy with the analogy: we have GEs every five years, and - crucially - a mechanism for shortening that timescale when it all goes to shit. Presumably you agree that it would be appropriate for similar rules to apply to direct democracy? Especially given that just being in parliament or being pm is dead easy - even May is capable of it - whereas things mandated by direct democratic decisions can be very difficult, and can turn out to be even more difficult than they appeared at the time of the vote.
Only if you agree that we will have referendum on membership every 5 years which will be enacted completely within one week of the result.
It would cause chaos of course but that is what you are now advocating anyway.
Nothing has to change. We had to elect a govt promising a referendum in order to get one. If public opinion is so inclined, the next GE will see a party promising a second ref elected, whats the problem?
Surely one of them will have that in their manifesto?
The problem is that a general election is about which party do you want to govern and is not poll on just one issue. If it is truly just a one issue poll you can reverse the Labour and LD percentages from GE 2017 and that just isn't going to happen.
It is the mechanism Leave had to use to get a referendum, and they managed it
If CM2 can achieve a clear overall majority of MPs the upshot will be that the WA passes and we leave by 30 June at the latest. The same if it just wins the indicative contest and is then used as a stick by Mrs May to get her deal through. WA passed, we leave, PD either unchanged or now reflecting the CM2 aspiration.
Therefore the PV faction should oppose and if Labour want a PRE Brexit general election they should try to look like they are supporting it but be hoping that the wheels come off.
Chances of the wheels coming off? Surely not negligible.
CM2 = FOM.
Ain't gonna happen.
If it does, there will be an anti immigration party doing quite well in future Elections, but so be it. If it was hard Brexit there would be a concerted effort from Centrists. Nothing is ever settled is it? All that has happened really is the consensus of "We are in the EU and that's that" which was established for the first 15 years of this century, is no longer there.
Good point. We can go back to those pre-EURef what's the point type discussions on PB.
A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called B No deal - 160 same as last time C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time) F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time. H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
FPT Got B wrong. Wasn't called. I got the rest right.
Revised predictions
C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV -280 (268 last time) G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time.
Some of these may win a majority. Perhaps more than one, which is fine as some are content and some are process.
Fine so long as they actually pick something on Wednesday! No reason to delay for crying out loud.
Even if they do, the government's last line of defence appears to be to instruct the payroll to abstain and then argue that the level of support for any of the options is below the whipped support for Mrs M's zombie deal.
He did not understand about the importance of the Dover-Calais route to our trade. I don't give two hoots about his academic record. I have spent over three decades dealing with people with fantastic academic records who are as stupid as fuck. Being good at whatever he was doing before he became an MP says nothing about his achievements as an MP and there and in Cabinet he has not distinguished himself. He looks - and is - out of his depth.
Not exactly what he said about Dover-Calais
He said he didn’t realise it was “quite as significant” as it was.
That’s a relative statement rather than the absolute one you report
I don't think there is a contradiction. But in any case it hardly helps his case, does it? Not quite as significant as what, exactly? Our exports from the port of Liverpool perhaps? Or Maryport? For God's sake, the first thing a Brexit secretary should have done is got a briefing on our trade and what routes it uses. He might even have thought to get such a briefing before he became a Brexiteer and started campaigning for us to leave.
In the context it sounded like (made up numbers for illustration) he thought it was 70% of trade and it turned out to be 80%
And it was a reference to before being appointed vs after it
Goodness knows that’s there’s enough to criticise the government for without making stuff up
I am not making anything up. He did not bother to properly brief himself on something he apparently cares deeply about. That makes him both stupid and frivolous. Not up to the job, as one C Attlee said of a minister he sacked.
There comes a point when you have to give up arguing with Charles when he is defending the indefensible.
I’m not defending Raab. I’m arguing that what he said was wilfully misrepresented by his political opponents. Unfortunately @Cyclefree has been taken in by it.
Comments
I tend to agree that it's likely to be offered if we make progress and convince them everything can be sorted before the EP election... but it does increase the pressure on the "verbiage" being in order.
Chubby British jihadi who was dubbed 'Hungry Hamza' after moaning about missing KFC loses five stone fighting for ISIS
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6872303/British-jihadi-moans-didnt-know-bad-life-ISIS-be.html
For all its flaws, a second referendum has the advantage of consulting the people rather than letting the assortment of tittering harlequins in Parliament fumble their way to some atrocious customs union.
The latter concept is ridiculous, retaining the costs of membership whilst losing what influence we had. A desire to remain is contrary to the referendum result but at least has the merit of honesty. The customs union tosh is like divorcing your wife, moving out, but still paying her mortgage.
It's also interesting that whilst the electorate is broadly moving to support either remain or leaving with no deal, the response of the political class has been to use May's rejected deal as a starting point and then try and move in an even more pro-EU direction. They may achieve a political consensus on Westminster's centre ground, but it may lack much common ground with the electorate.
Turns out not making plans for no deal and then not letting allocated funds be spent on said measures doesn't make it better.
That is effectively what you are saying, since "the will of the people" would clearly have changed in your eyes.
"There are three connected questions that add up to some interesting problems for both sides of the referendum debate..."
...not a commitment to what should be done. Give us some credit FFS
a) remain
b) have a two year extension while we block all progress, then another "confirmatory" referendum.
Financially incentivised voting would transform turnout, campaigns and policies
Peter Kellner"
https://unherd.com/2019/03/can-bribery-fix-democracy/?=refinnar
Was Cameron's renegotiation deal ratified by the Commons before the referendum?
Would it have had to pass a vote if Remain had won?
What would have happened if Remain won and the Commons voted it down?
Obviously the Eu hasn't signed up to all that though, so it'll be a matter for negotiation once we're out.
Mind you, of course he would!
A politician's agent would contact a political boss who would contract to deliver, say, 300 votes, in return for a fee. The money was then deposited with a third party. If the politician got elected, then the money was released. If he wasn't, the money was returned to him. Thus, the 300 voters would be incentivised to keep their promise.
But as you are clearly happy with the analogy: we have GEs every five years, and - crucially - a mechanism for shortening that timescale when it all goes to shit. Presumably you agree that it would be appropriate for similar rules to apply to direct democracy? Especially given that just being in parliament or being pm is dead easy - even May is capable of it - whereas things mandated by direct democratic decisions can be very difficult, and can turn out to be even more difficult than they appeared at the time of the vote.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1112641578236022785
Even if they are happening uncomfortably late.
A referendum is a bad idea which, unfortunately, is the best option we currently have. And there are good reasons for one and bad reasons. Ones based on polling are not good reasons, in my view, because the peoples' view might be very different soon. If we do leave, somehow, and rejoin immediately drops to 10% (I expect it would be higher, but let us imagine) what would that say about the will of the people, who were asking for remain in the polls not long before?
It would cause chaos of course but that is what you are now advocating anyway.
Therefore the PV faction should oppose and if Labour want a PRE Brexit general election they should try to look like they are supporting it but be hoping that the wheels come off.
Chances of the wheels coming off? Surely not negligible.
https://www.stalbansmuseums.org.uk/about/blog/bribery-st-albans
https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1112736093978443776
They are the real enemies of the people.
On to debate on the Brexit options. Ends for votes at 8pm.
Despite the eight options already tabled, there seems some confusion as to whether Labour's proposal is due to make a late appearance.
Surely one of them will have that in their manifesto?
Speaker selects:
C (Clarke) - Customs Union
D (Boles) - Common Market 2.0
E (Kyle-Wilson) - Confirmatory Referendum
G (Cherry) - Extension or Revocation
No deal not selected
Done on the basis of support last time?
https://twitter.com/robhastings/status/1112710543259906053?s=19
Baron now complaining about the selection. However level of support last time does provide a justification.
What do referendum backers do? I assume the above 2 are, in principle, supposed to be approved by parliament not subject to a comfirmatory vote?
Ain't gonna happen.
Why then should they have rules analagous to a GE? The referendum had rules which were agreed by Parliament and the Electoral Commission. What you are actually saying is they should have rules that allow you to overturn a result you don't like.
There are two separate elements. Firstly, for the reasons Dominic Cummings outlined, it is a good idea to have a confirmatory referendum on the outcome of Article 50 regardless of the state of public opinion. Secondly, while in general terms if it were apparent that there was a settled consensus behind the initial decision it might be ok to proceed without confirmation, in the specific circumstance where it appears that public opinion has moved against that decision then there is an absolute imperative to seek confirmation.
No deal has been done to cremation and the whole point is to come to a compromise . No deal will never be supported by a majority of MPs. The ERG need to STFU and either vote for Mays deal or join UKIP.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47764393
It really is ironic - they had brexit and chucked it away and just do not understand numbers and the realism that dictates
I hope the ultras resign or have the whip removed
Revised predictions
C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum")
D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified)
E Confirmatory PV -280 (268 last time)
G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time.
Some of these may win a majority. Perhaps more than one, which is fine as some are content and some are process.
Says the key is what compromise each member is prepared to make. Must avoid no deal exit next week.
Saying that her campaign was 'poisoning the memory of her ancestors', he also accused Ms Riley of taking '30 pieces of silver' from the Tory Party, and had repeatedly compared Zionists to the Nazis.
But a leaked email shows labour chiefs ignored a complaint about Mr James's tweets last year.
Mr James was first reported to the party in January 2018 by activist Euan Philipps from the pressure group Labour Against Anti-Semitism.
Mr Philipps sent the Labour complaints team a comprehensive dossier of Mr James' offensive tweets, together with details of the part of the country in which he lived and the local party to which he belonged.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6872597/Troll-suspended-Labour-targeting-Rachel-Riley-reported-YEAR-party-did-nothing.html
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1112749182694113280
What. The. Actual.
No it wouldn't.
All primary decisions in life need some sort of review mechanism. You are in a ridiculous position because you don't trust the electorate to replicate the 2016 result, so you have to pretend to think that referendum results are unique in a way they just aren't. As soon as you make any concession at all on any kind of review mechanism you are stuffed, and you know it.
So, again: should referendum results never, ever be subject to any form of review in any circumstances?
The TIGgers are such scaredy cats they wont even risk by elections in seats they won in 2017, and they supposedly have the public's change of opinion on the EU behind them